Are We "Calvinistic"?

Kevin Kinnett

Sunday Evening: Are We Calvinistic? • Sermon • Submitted 6 years ago

0 ratings

· 78 views

Notes

Transcript

Sermon Tone Analysis

Emotion

Language

Social

View more →

Who Was John Calvin?

John Calvin (1509-1564) was a French humanist scholar who was gloriously saved and became the Reformer of Geneva, Switzerland.

He began study for the priesthood at the University of Paris at the age of 14, but through a conflict with the bishop he eventually left to study law.

His conversion is believed to have taken place probably in 1533 or 1534 through his contact with Protestants…He rejected the “superstitions of the Papacy” and was persecuted for his faith.

At the age of 26 he published the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion which became foundational teaching for the Reformation.

His influence was felt throughout Europe as his doctrinal teachings spread quickly…directly impacting confessional statements of Reformed churches that would eventually impact the American churches…eventually replacing Lutheranism.

He developed a system of theology

The Puritans became an important force for Calvinism in England who eventually came to America.

Calvinism would produce some great biblical scholars to whom much of the Baptist heritage is owed.

The Synod of Dort met in 1618-1619 which condemned prominent teachings of the day and reaffirmed Calvinistic doctrine...

So those who are using Calvinism negatively to persuade people away from us or to discourage people from joining us, and if they are part of a Baptist Church, they also are Calvinists to some degree. (Explain this more later.)

The Synod of Dort met in 1618-1619 which condemned prominent teachings of the day and reaffirmed Calvinistic doctrine...

What does it mean to be a “Calvinist”?

When people today refer to themselves (or us) as Calvinistic they are referring to an adherence to the Five Points of Calvinism that came out of the Synod of Dort…Calvin did not author them, they are a summary of his theological position.

Central to his theology is the Sovereignty of God and His grace and man and his sin.

The Five Points of Calvinism are summarized in the acronym TULIP.

Total depravity

Unconditional election

Limited atonement

Irresistible grace

Perseverance of the saints.

Is Calvinism fitting with sound biblical theology?

You need to decide for yourself…I am going to try to avoid telling you what I believe, unless you ask me, and let the Holy Spirit instruct you as we examine the texts and seek to understand them together…I really want you to be a student of the Scripture…you need to be fully persuaded in your own mind…

This series is not going to be for the faint of heart…in other words, I want to take you deep into this, but I want to do this in a way that is understandable and not overwhelmingly academic…I want you to be able to answer those who question you...

1 Peter 3:15 NASB95

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

Laying the Foundation

I want to say from the outset that there are some things we will discuss that create a tension in our minds…they are things that in our limited understanding are inconsistent, at odds with each other, but are clearly taught in Scripture.

So before we deal with each of the five points of Calvinism, we need to gain a biblical understanding of some important elements of Christ work and our salvation.

The Doctrine of Christ’s Atonement

It is in the doctrine of Christ’s sacrificial work, or the atonement, that the doctrines of God, Christ, man, and sin come together to address the character of God, the spiritual need of man, and the provision of Christ to meet both the demands of God’s character for justice and the need of mankind for forgiveness.

The doctrine of the atonement has direct application to our lives, for it is what has made salvation possible for us who were lost sinners under the wrath of God.

Understanding “atonement”

We should distinguish the meaning and use of the OT word for atonement from the doctrine of the atonement of Christ as a NT theological concept.

The main Hebrew word for atonement is “to cover,” found also in related forms.

There is an equivalent Arabic root meaning “to cover” or “conceal,” so with that connection it is thought that the Hebrew root means “to cover over sin” in the sense that by the offering of a substitute the penalty of sin is removed from the sinner.

Theologically speaking, the concept of the atonement of Jesus Christ describes all that Christ did for us to provide our salvation.

“Biblically the word atonement is not used in connection with the death of Christ, but since it is used of the covering for sin in the Old Testament, it is not unbiblical to give it a theological meaning that is in reality more inclusive than its strict Biblical usage.”

Yet more can be said, since there appears to 7 be terminological overlap between the OT and the NT on the subject of atonement. In the LXX translates ִכֶּפּר with ἐξιλάσκομαι in relation to Levitical sacrifice. uses ἱλάσκομαι in relation to Christ’s sacrifice.

Yet more can be said, since there appears to be terminological overlap between the OT and the NT on the subject of atonement. In the LXX translates ִכֶּפּר with ἐξιλάσκομαι in relation to Levitical sacrifice. uses ἱλάσκομαι in relation to Christ’s sacrifice.

Reymond, “Obedience of Christ,” 785.3 BDB, 497.4 TWOT, vol. 1, 452–53.5 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 568.6 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [Chicago: Moody, 1965], 28, emphasis original.7 !4

Theories of the Atonement

Since Scripture testifies to various facets of the atonement, various theories have arisen that tend to emphasize certain facets at times to the neglect or denial of others. We will examine several of these theories and then set forth a proper understanding of the doctrine of the atonement.

(1) The Socinian Theory—Atonement as an Example of Christ’s Devotion

Faustus (1539–1604) and his uncle Laelius (1525–1562) Socinus developed this teaching in the 16th century.

They rejected the idea that the death of Christ was for us as a vicarious satisfaction for our sin.

Man is morally capable of doing God’s will (denial of human depravity).

God does not demand some kind of satisfaction for sin.

Jesus was just a man (denial of Christ’s deity), but He provided a beautiful example of the kind of dedication we should practice toward God.

does say that Christ suffered, leaving an example that we should follow in his steps. Likewise, speaks of Christ’s obedience to the Father unto death (see also ).

D. A. Carson points out the inadequacy of the Socinian Theory. If someone ran headlong down a pier loudly proclaiming his love for the world, jumped in, and drowned, we would pronounce him crazy, not praise his love. “For one cannot meaningfully speak of self-sacrificing love unless there is a purpose to the self-sacrifice” (D. A. Carson, How Long O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990], 192). This is similar to the Healing View presented in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views 9 (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2006).

(2) The Moral Influence Theory—Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Love

Peter Abelard (1079–1142) developed this theory in the 12th century.

Again, Christ did not make a sacrificial payment for sin to the Father.

God is love, and the death of Jesus demonstrated God’s great love for man in that Jesus identified with our sufferings to the point of death.

Man’s sin is like a sickness from which he needs healing.

He is afraid of God. He must be shown that his sin does not please God.

When man sees what Jesus did to demonstrate God’s love for man, man is softened and drawn to love and trust God (cf. e.g. ; ; , ).

(3) The Governmental Theory—Atonement as a Demonstration of God’s Justice

Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a statesman, theologian and historian of the 17th century, came up with this theory.

God, as holy and righteous, has established universal laws.

Sin violates these laws, and God has a right to punish these violations.

God did not have to exact a specific penalty for each violation—He could simply forgive—but He did want to show man that law-breaking is an affront to God.

So Christ did not die to pay the penalty for the sins of people.

affront to God. So Christ did not die to pay the penalty for the sins of people. Whatever Christ did He did for all people. Therefore, Christ did not pay the actual penalty for anyone’s sins; otherwise, all would be saved and none would be lost. Instead, Christ suffered and died so that those who repent and believe might be saved. Christ’s death showed God’s justice and hatred for sin. When 10 we see how Christ died, we will be frightened into obedience. We will realize how terrible sin is, turn from our sin, and receive forgiveness. The Bible does confirm that sin is an affront to God worthy of death (; ).

Whatever Christ did He did for all people. Therefore, Christ did not pay the actual penalty for anyone’s sins; otherwise, all would be saved and none would be lost.

Instead, Christ suffered and died so that those who repent and believe might be saved. Christ’s death showed God’s justice and hatred for sin.

When we see how Christ died, we will be frightened into obedience. We will realize how terrible sin is, turn from our sin, and receive forgiveness.

The Bible does confirm that sin is an affront to God worthy of death (; ).

This is why the governmental theory is often linked with Arminian theology and its understanding of universal atonement: if Christ died for all, and Christ paid for the sins of all, then all would be saved. Yet not all are saved; therefore, Christ didn’t die to pay for all our sins. This theory has surfaced recently in the film The Chronicles of Narnia, in which Aslan the lion offers himself to the White Witch in exchange for the human boy Edmund.

(4) The Ransom Theory—Atonement as Victory over Satan

This theory was developed by Origen (185–254) in the 3rd century and Gregory of Nyssa (335–394) in the 4th.

In the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil, Satan established control over man.

Man’s problem, therefore, was his enslavement to Satan.

God could not just “steal” man back; Satan had rightful ownership over man. So Jesus came to give his life as a ransom (), a payment, however made not to God but to Satan.

Satan was tricked by his own greed into giving up man in exchange for the life of Christ (Christ was the “bait” God used to “catch” Satan).

Only later did Satan learn he had no power to hold Christ.

In this way, Christ defeated Satan and man was freed from the power of sin and Satan.

Scripture does describe the cross as a victory over Satan (; ).

(5) The Satisfaction Theory—Atonement as Compensation to the Father

Anselm (1033–1109), archbishop of Canterbury, developed this theory in the 12th century in his writing Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became a Man).

Anselm rejected the ransom to Satan theory and taught that Christ’s death did in fact satisfy a principle in the very nature of God.

God by His very nature cannot simply disregard man’s sin. He must either punish it or accept satisfaction made on man’s behalf.

The only one who could make full satisfaction for sin was God Himself.

But if it was to avail for man, it had to be made by a man. Therefore, the satisfaction had to be rendered by someone who was both God and man.

This necessitated the incarnation and death of Christ. Because Christ was both God and sinless human, He did not deserve death. Therefore, his death could serve as a satisfaction to God and sufficient payment for man’s sins.

Scripture confirms that the death of Christ for the sins of mankind was accepted by God who was thereby satisfied ().

that the death of Christ for the sins of mankind was accepted by God who was thereby satisfied (). 12

The Reformers modified Anselm’s Satisfaction view somewhat.

For Anselm, sin was an affront to God’s honor, and the death of Christ satisfied God’s honor.

For the Reformers, sin was a violation of God’s Law and incurred God’s wrath, and the death of Christ satisfied God’s holiness and justice (satisfaction).

Further, Christ's death turned away God’s wrath from us since Christ bore God’s wrath when He became sin for us on the cross (propitiation).

This modification of the classical Satisfaction view is called the Penal Substitution view.

Summary of the various views

When we examine the various theories we see that there is a certain measure of truth in each one.

By His death Christ did (1) give a perfect example of the type of dedication God desires of man (; ; ); (2) demonstrate God’s great love for man (; ; ; ); (3) show the seriousness of sin and the severity of God’s judgment (; ); (4) triumph over the spiritual forces of sin and death, liberating man from their power (; ); and (5) render satisfaction to the Father for the sins of man ().

However, we must ask which of these theories contains the most fundamental truth regarding the atonement.

Which theory contains the truth that makes the truth of the other theories possible?

The problem with the first four theories does not lie in the element of truth they each affirm, but rather in their denial of the truth expressed in the modified fifth theory, which captures the core idea of the atonement (see handout).

The modified Satisfaction view (Penal Substitution) seems more fundamental....as the biblical doctrine of the atonement; but first, we need to examine several background truths that should be taken into consideration at the outset.

Important Background Truths for the Doctrine of the Atonement

Earlier I said that in Christ’s sacrificial work the doctrines of God, Christ, man, and sin come together to address the character of God, need of man, and provision of Christ to meet God’s demands for justice and man’s need for forgiveness.

These comprise important background truths to consider regarding the atonement.

(1) The Nature of God

In The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, the closest to the Satisfaction Theory is the Penal 12 Substitution View. To read an attack against this view by Brian McLaren, read the conversation available online at: http://apprising.org/2008/10/26/brian-mclaren-attacks-the-substitutionaryatonement/, accessed April 3, 2015. Leon Morris, “Atonement, Theories of the,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 101–2.13 !7

(1) The Nature of God

God by His very nature is completely perfect and holy. He cannot tolerate or overlook sin in His presence. Habakkuk says to God, “Your eyes are too pure to look at evil” (). Therefore God will not leave the guilty unpunished ().

(2) The Law of God

God’s law is not just an abstract list of rules and regulations; it is an expression of His very character.

Disobedience to God’s law is a direct attack upon the nature of God, an affront to His character.

To sin and break God’s law is to cut oneself off from God, the giver of all life.

Thus, violation of God’s law always brings death. God told Adam and Eve that in the day they disobeyed Him and ate the forbidden fruit, they would die ().

The Lord told Ezekiel, “the soul that sins shall die” ().

According to Paul, “the wages of sin is death” ().

There is a direct cause-effect connection between sin against God and the punishment of death.

(3) The Human Condition

The Bible teaches the total, holistic, or pervasive depravity of man ().

This does not mean that man is as wicked as he can possibly be, but rather that every aspect of his nature has been corrupted by sin.

As a result, he is completely unable to do anything to save himself from his lost condition in sin (total inability).

If payment is to be made for sinful man, it must be done on behalf of sinful man by someone else who himself is without sin.

(4) The Nature of Christ

Jesus Christ is both God and man.

He is the preexistent and eternal Second Person of the Trinity.

He took on a genuine and complete human nature; thus, His death can apply to our sins, for He really and truly became one of us (, ).

However, because He was also God, He was utterly sinless and did not deserve to die.

Therefore, His death is of infinite worth to pay for the sins of mankind.

He was entirely without blemish and spotless; therefore His blood is precious and able to redeem us from all our sins (; ).

(5) The OT Sacrificial System

The OT clearly reveals God’s holiness (), which demands strict obedience to His Law ().

part of His covenant through Moses a way for sinful man to receive forgiveness: the Levitical system of sacrifices.

However, the OT also makes clear the sinfulness of man (, ).

part of His covenant through Moses a way for sinful man to receive forgiveness: the Levitical system of sacrifices.

Thus in His mercy God provided as part of His covenant through Moses a way for sinful man to receive forgiveness: the Levitical system of sacrifices.

The verb used in conjunction with the sacrifices probably derives its basic meaning from the noun form for “ransom.”

A key usage of this noun is found in . Here we can see that a ransom is substitutionary, as v. 4 states clearly that it is payment made in the place of another, a life in exchange for a life (see also ).

Thus, from the meaning of the Hebrew noun used for “ransom,” we can better understand the Hebrew verb ִ“to cover over sin,” “atone,” or “make payment by offering a substitute.”

From this verb we get the noun “atonement,” and the accompanying expression, Yom Kippur or “Day of Atonement.”

We also get the noun “mercy seat,” or “place of atonement,” the name given to the golden cover of the Ark of the Covenant.

Again, the key concept of the OT Levitical system was the provision of a substitutionary payment for sin.

According to , the person bringing an animal for a burnt offering had to first lay his hand on the animal’s head, so that the animal would be accepted for him, to make atonement on his behalf.

The OT sacrifices did bring forgiveness (; ).

They also performed a sanctifying ministry in terms of external cleansing (, ), but they could not cleanse the conscience—that is, give assurance that one’s sins were once and for all dealt with and removed for all time (v. 14; cf. vv. 9, 12).

The repetitiveness of the sacrifices made this limitation clear (9:25, 10:11). The sins of the OT saints were only “covered” and “passed over” by God until Christ came to make final, once-for-all, payment for them ().

Theories of the Atonement

(1) Christ’s Death was a Sacrifice

The Bible teaches clearly that the death of Christ was a sacrifice—first, according to OT prophecy in , . Of special significance is v. 10, where the Suffering Servant offers His life (ַנְפשׁוֹ) as a guilt offering (ָא ָשׁם). This was one of the Levitical offerings (see , ).

Isaiah 53:4–7 NASB95

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

Is 53:4-7

Isaiah 53:10–12 NASB95

But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

Is 53

Leviticus 5:6 NASB95

‘He shall also bring his guilt offering to the Lord for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin.

Leviticus 7:1 NASB95

‘Now this is the law of the guilt offering; it is most holy.

Second, coming to the NT, Christ stated in His high priestly prayer, “I sanctify Myself” (), which is sacrificial language used in reference both to the OT priests () and sacrifices (, ). Both apply to Christ: “as both victim and priest he who is one with the Father ([John] 1:1, 14:9–10) voluntarily sets himself apart to perform his Father’s will (cf. , ).” According to , Christ gave Himself up for us as an offering 16 (προσφορά) and sacrifice (θυσία) to God (τῷ θεῷ). Thus, Christ offered Himself up to God, not to Satan (contra Ransom to Satan Theory).

Ephesians 5:2 NASB95

and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

Hebrews describes in detail how the sacrifice of Christ followed the pattern of the OT Day of Atonement.

Hebrews describes in detail how the sacrifice of Christ followed the pattern of the OT Day of Atonement. First, Christ offered Himself as the sin offering (, , ). He suffered outside the gate, just as the OT sin offering was burned outside the camp (; cf. ; cf. also the Red Heifer, killed outside the camp, ). Second, Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies with His own blood (, ). Because what He offered was His own precious blood (vv. 12–14; cf. ), His sacrifice was oncefor-all (7:27, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 12, 14). Through one sacrifice Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified (10:14). Therefore, there is no other sacrifice to be offered (v. 18).

First, Christ offered Himself as the sin offering (, , ). He suffered outside the gate, just as the OT sin offering was burned outside the camp (; cf. ; cf. also the Red Heifer, killed outside the camp, ).

Second, Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies with His own blood (, ). Because what He offered was His own precious blood (vv. 12–14; cf. ), His sacrifice was once for-all (, , , , , , ). Through one sacrifice Christ has perfected forever those who are sanctified (). Therefore, there is no other sacrifice to be offered (v. 18).

The NT also calls Christ our Passover (πάσχα) in . The Greek word πάσχα is transliterated from the Hebrew noun ֶפַּסח, “Passover,” from the verb ָפַּסח, “to pass over” something or someone. Both the feast (, ) and the animal victim sacrificed for its observance (; , ) are referred to by the word “Passover.” Jesus Christ is the true Passover sacrifice, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” ().

Paul writes about the blood of Christ using sacrificial language. There is propitiation (turning away God’s wrath by sacrifice; see below) in His blood (), justification by His blood (), and redemption (see below) through His blood (). We have been brought near to God by the blood of Christ (). Christ has made peace by the blood of His cross ().

(2) Christ’s Death was a Substitution

Christ died in our place. This means that God imputed the sins of mankind to Christ as He hung on the cross (), punishing Christ instead of sinners, so that God’s wrath and punishment would not have to fall on them because of their sins. Our sin debt was nailed to the cross with Christ ().

We need to define imputation.

The Greek verb λογίζομαι is an accounting term that means “to reckon something to someone’s account.” There are two kinds of imputation in Scripture, real imputation, and judicial, or decreed, imputation.

Real imputation means reckoning to someone something that was previously his —that is, it belonged to him prior to the reckoning.

An example is Adam’s sin (according to the seminal headship theory). When we are conceived and born, God imputes Adam’s sin to our account, based on the fact that we were in Adam when he sinned. So this is real imputation, because Adam’s sin also belonged to us. We sinned in Adam when he sinned (). Real imputation is placing on one’s account that which actually belongs to him.

Romans 5:12 NASB95

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

On the other hand, judicial or decreed imputation means reckoning to someone something that was not previously his—that is, it did not belong to him prior to the reckoning. And here is where we have the death of Christ as a substitution. God the Father imputed the sins of all mankind to Christ, even though Christ had never sinned Himself. He was punished for sins that did not previously belong to him. 17

In , it is prophesied that the Messiah would suffer and die as a substitute, that He would bear the sins of mankind.

In v. 5 He was wounded on account of our transgressions and bruised on account of our iniquities.

The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all, v. 6.

He bore the sin of many, v. 12.

In the NT we clearly see that Christ’s death was a substitution.

2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB95

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

In we read that Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us. The preposition for, ὑπέρ, can mean “instead of” as well as “for the benefit of.” Christ was made sin in our place and for our benefit. In this way we say Christ’s death was vicarious (for our benefit) and substitutionary (in our place). We see substitution and benefit in , where Christ suffered for sins, the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust, that He might bring us to God. says that Christ died for our sins and according to He became a curse for us. Christ also spoke of

In this way we say Christ’s death was vicarious (for our benefit) and substitutionary (in our place).

We see substitution and benefit in , where Christ suffered for sins, the just for (ὑπέρ) the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

We also see another example of judicial imputation is that of God’s righteousness to our account when we place our faith in Christ at salvation, making it possible for God to justify us (declare us righteous) in spite of our sins ().

says that Christ died for our sins and according to He became a curse for us. Christ also spoke of Himself as a substitute. He said “greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for [ὑπέρ] his friends” (; cf. ).

Another example of judicial imputation is that of God’s righteousness to our account when we 17 place our faith in Christ at salvation, making it possible for God to justify us (declare us righteous) in spite of our sins (). !11

Himself as a substitute. He said “greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for [ὑπέρ] his friends” (; cf. ).

Another preposition the NT uses to teach substitution is ἀντί, which means “in place of” or “instead of.” In and , we read that Jesus Christ came to give His life as a ransom for many (λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν).

The word “ransom” carries the idea of deliverance from bondage in exchange for a payment of compensation, or the offering of a substitute.

is of special interest in that it uses ἀντί as a prefixed form as well as the preposition ὑπέρ. Christ gave Himself as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον, “substitute ransom”) for (ὑπέρ) all. Christ clearly died as our substitute.

(3) Christ’s Death was a Satisfaction

Satisfaction means that the death of Christ fully met, or satisfied, the demands of God’s holiness, righteous, and justice, which require an adequate and equivalent payment for sins committed against Him.

Satisfaction is demanded by God’s glorious nature.

God is holy, and therefore we must be holy (). When we are not holy—when we do anything contrary to that which glorifies God—we are an offense to His glorious person.

When we sin we do not measure up to God’s glory, but rather fall short of it ().

God’s justice demands that satisfactory payment be made for sin.

He is the judge of all the earth (). He will in no way clear the guilty (). “The soul that sins shall die” (). And the justice of God demands an equivalent payment for sin.

Since sin is against Almighty God Himself (; ), it incurs an infinite debt (see and the 10,000 talent debt). If the debt were not fully demanded by God, and thus not fully paid to Him, then God could not remain truly holy and just in the face of the sins committed against Him.

In order to pay an infinite debt, an infinitely worthy sacrifice would have to be made, and in Christ it was. He shed His precious blood, as a lamb without blemish or spot (). He offered Himself through the eternal Spirit, without spot, to God (). Therefore, His offering of Himself satisfies the just demands of God for adequate payment for the sins of mankind.

Isaiah prophesies of Christ’s satisfactory payment to God for sin in the graphic, judicial language of chapter 53.

God would smite and afflict His Servant (), who would be punished for our transgressions ( ). Because all people had gone astray, the iniquity of all people would fall on God’s Suffering Servant ().

!12

God’s Servant would endure all of this punishment in silence even though He had done no wrong Himself (). The Lord would be pleased to crush His Servant, who would make Himself a guilt offering (). As a result of the Servant’s anguish God would be satisfied and would justify many whose iniquities His Suffering Servant would bear (1). The NET Bible has an interesting note on :

6). God’s Servant would endure all of this punishment in silence even though He had done no wrong Himself (vv. 7–9). The Lord would be pleased to crush His Servant, who would make Himself a guilt offering (v. 10). As a result of the Servant’s anguish God would be satisfied and would justify many whose iniquities His Suffering Servant would bear (v. 11). The NET Bible has an interesting note on :

“Some … object to this legal interpretation of the language, arguing that it would be unjust for the righteous to suffer for the wicked and for the wicked to be declared innocent. However, such a surprising development is consistent with the ironic nature of this song. It does seem unfair for the innocent to die for the guilty. But what is God to do when all have sinned and wandered off like stray sheep (cf. v. 6)? Covenant law demands punishment, but punishment in this case would mean annihilation of what God has created. God’s justice, as demanded by the law, must be satisfied. To satisfy his justice, he does something seemingly unjust. He punishes his sinless servant, the only one who has not strayed off! In the progress of biblical revelation, we discover that the sinless servant is really God in the flesh, who offers himself because he is committed to the world he has created. If his justice can only be satisfied if he himself endures the punishment, then so be it. What appears to be an act of injustice is really love satisfying the demands of justice!”

(4) Christ’s Death was a Propitiation

As a result of God’s justice being satisfied by Christ’s payment for sin, God’s wrath is turned away from the sinner by the sacrifice of His Son in the sinner’s place. This turning away or averting of divine wrath by sacrifice is what we call propitiation.

“To propitiate” translates the Greek verb ἱλάσκομαι, and “propitiation” the noun ἱλασμός.

The use of these words in the NT must be understood in accordance with the background provided by their use in the LXX.

Just to give a few key examples, in God’s anger burns against Israel and He threatens to destroy them (v. 10). Moses entreats God to turn from His burning anger and change His mind about harming His people (v. 12). In response to Moses’ prayer, “the Lord was propitiated to preserve His people” (ἱλάσθη Κύριος περιποιῆσαι τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ) (v. 14).

In Jeremiah’s prayer to the Lord he confesses, “We have transgressed and rebelled, and thou has not been propitious” (οὐχ ἱλάσθης) (). Rather, Jeremiah adds, “Thou hast visited us in wrath” (ἐπεσκέπασας ἐν θυμῷ) (v. 43).

In Daniel’s prayer for his people he entreats the Lord, “let, I pray thee, thy wrath turn away, and thine anger from thy city Jerusalem” (), then concludes, “Hearken, O Lord; be propitious, O Lord [ἱλάσθητι Κύριε], attend O Lord” (v. 19).

Finally, as Asaph reflects on the compassion of God in the face of His people’s rebellion, he speaks of how God “will be propitious [ἱλάσεται] [concerning] their sins, and will not destroy them; yea, He will frequently turn away His wrath, and will not kindle all His anger” (, LXX Ps 77:38).

anger from thy city Jerusalem” (), then concludes, “Hearken, O Lord; be propitious, O Lord [ἱλάσθητι Κύριε], attend O Lord” (v. 19). Finally, as Asaph reflects on the compassion of God in the face of His people’s rebellion, he speaks of how God “will be propitious [ἱλάσεται] [concerning] their sins, and will not destroy them; yea, He will frequently turn away His wrath, and will not kindle all His anger” (, LXX Ps 77:38). The idea of “propitiate” in each of these passages is clearly linked with the turning away of the wrath of God in the face of sins committed against Him. 19

The idea of “propitiate” in each of these passages is clearly linked with the turning away of the wrath of God in the face of sins committed against Him.

Coming to the NT, Christ gave Himself up for us “as an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma” (; cf. ). In response to the sacrifice of His Son, God is propitiated.

According to Paul in Romans, God’s wrath is revealed against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (). Only through faith in Christ’s death for sins can sinful man be justified by God ().

This is because God publicly displayed Christ as a propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) in His blood (v. 25). Therefore, it is through the blood of Christ we have been saved from the wrath of God ( ).

According to Hebrews, the purpose of Christ’s incarnation and work as High Priest in offering Himself as a sacrifice was to make propitiation (ἱλάσκεσθαι) for the sins of the people ().

The word used for propitiation in (ἱλαστήριον) is used in for the mercy seat, the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, which was the place where propitiation for sin was made by the sprinkling of blood.

John tells us that Christ is our Advocate with the Father when we sin, because Christ Himself is the propitiation (ἱλασμός) for our sins and the sins of the whole world ().

Later in the same letter John says that it was because of His love that God sent His Son to be the propitiation (ἱλασμός) for our sins (4:10).

One final point: Christ turned God’s wrath from us because He bore God’s wrath for us.

God’s wrath was the cup that Christ wished could be removed from Him in Gethsemane—yet He yielded to it willingly (; cf. ; ; cf. ).

Several times in Scripture the cup represents the wrath of God poured out upon sinners (, ; ; , ).

The agony of Christ’s cross was not just physical, as terrible as that was; Christ experienced separation from His Father as He bore our sins, as evidenced by His cry as one abandoned by God (; ; cf. ).

Jesus cried out of the darkness that had fallen upon the land from noon to 3:00 pm (; ). Because Christ bore the wrath of God for us, we will never have to experience it ().

To conclude these sections on Christ’s death as satisfaction and propitiation, because God’s just demands were fully satisfied by the death of Christ, whom God displayed as a propitiation in His blood, God is proven to be righteous in passing over sins committed before Christ came, and He remains just while He freely justifies the sinner who places his faith in Christ today ().

(5) Christ’s Death was for Redemption

Redemption means that through His death, Christ paid the price required to free the believer from the penalty of and bondage to sin, both in time and eternity.

In Greek the ἀγορά was the market place. The verb ἀγοράζω meant to buy or redeem for one’s own possession.

According to the NT, we have been purchased with a price (; cf. ). Christ purchased people for God with His blood (; cf. 14:3–4). Potentially, Christ paid the price to set all men free (cf. ).

A second important verb regarding redemption is ἐξαγοράζω, meaning to set free, which focuses attention more on the result of redemption, namely freedom.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us (). He redeemed those who were under the Law (). We have been set free from the condemnation of the Law due to our sins.

The third important term related to redemption is λύτρον and related forms.

A λύτρον is a ransom, a price paid to effect deliverance or to make compensation.

Christ Himself was the ransom, the payment made on our behalf (; ).

A related word is λύτρωσις, which looks more to the result of the ransom payment, which is redemption, or permanent freedom. Christ through His own blood obtained eternal redemption for us (; cf. , ).

The verb form λυτρόω, to redeem, is used in , where it says we were redeemed from every lawless deed, and in , where we were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.

A couple of other important “redemption” terms are ἀντίλυτρον, ransom, found in , and ἀπολύτρωσις, redemption, found in , ; ; , , ; ; and . points to an important future aspect of redemption, that of the body (cf. ). This will mark perfect and permanent freedom from sin.

We use English the same way when we go to the “shop” in order “to shop.”

The NT sets forth several key results of redemption. Because of redemption through the blood of Christ:

(a) We are delivered from the curse of the Law ().

(b) We have the forgiveness of our trespasses ().

(d) We receive the adoption as sons ().

(e) We are now slaves of righteousness and enslaved to God (, ).

(f) We are undergoing the process of sanctification ().

(g) We will be one day be fully redeemed in body and soul (; , ).

(6) Christ’s Death was for Reconciliation

Reconciliation concerns the ultimate goal of our salvation: completely restored fellowship between God and man ().

By reconciliation we mean that the substitutionary death of Christ has removed the barrier of sin between God and man, enabling God’s view toward man to change from enmity to peace.

As we will shortly see, a potential restoration of peaceful relations is available for all men, but the actual restoration occurs only when individual sinners accept reconciliation by placing their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

The verb to reconcile, καταλλάσσω, generally means to exchange something for something else.

Theologically in the NT, the term describes God’s changing His view toward man.

Because of the substitutionary death of Christ, God is able to change His view toward man from one of enmity (the state of being enemies) to one of peace (the state of being friends).

Before the death of Christ, there was enmity between God and man (see handout “Enmity between God and Man”).

Man was the enemy of God (), and God’s wrath was toward all of the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ().

Our sin debt was a barrier between us and God, bringing only His wrath and condemnation upon us. Because we were all born sinners, by nature we were those deserving the wrath of God ().

Christ’s death on the cross, His taking our sins upon Himself () and His becoming sin for us (), enabled God to change His view toward man and to reconcile all of sinful mankind to Himself (; , see handout “Potential Reconciliation between God and Man”).

In this sense the potential for change from enmity to peace between God and man is available for all men.

God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself. God has changed His view toward the world because of Christ. God has potentially made peace with the world. The world is “savable” because of Christ’s death.

The Good News of the gospel is that God has reconciled the world to Himself; because of Christ He has made peace with a sinful world possible.

However, this restoration of peace from enmity between God and man is only potential; it is not actual or effective until sinful man by faith accepts this peace with God (see handout “Actual Reconciliation between God and Man”). The Good News of the gospel is that God has reconciled the world to Himself; because of Christ He has made peace with a sinful world possible. We believers, as ambassadors, have been given this Good News to proclaim to the world. Paul calls it the ministry of reconciliation () and the word of reconciliation (v. 19). We are to implore people to “be reconciled to God”—that is, to accept the fact that God has already made peace with them possible, and that they can now have that peace with Him actualized through faith in the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ on their behalf.

We believers, as ambassadors, have been given this Good News to proclaim to the world. Paul calls it the ministry of reconciliation () and the word of reconciliation (v. 19). We are to implore people to “be reconciled to God”—that is, to accept the fact that God has already made peace with them possible, and that they can now have that peace with Him actualized through faith in the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ on their behalf.

Potential reconciliation to God through Christ is actualized by faith in Christ. When we place our faith in Christ we are reconciled to God () and receive the reconciliation made possible by His Son’s death ().

(7) Concluding Statement on the Atonement of Christ

Placing all of the above aspects of Christ’s atoning death into one summary statement,

We can affirm that Christ’s death on the cross was a substitutionary sacrifice, which satisfied the righteous demands of God, propitiated Him, redeems the believer from sin, and reconciles him to God.

A final topic to consider is the extent of the atonement.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God's word.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God's word. It focuses on God's sovereignty - stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace, predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual to where he is then able to and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

It focuses on God's sovereignty - stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence to do whatever He desires with His creation.

It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings:

We need to examine two issues: for whom Christ died; and for what Christ died.

That God, by His sovereign grace, predestines people into salvation;

that Jesus died only for those predestined;

that God regenerates the individual to where he is then able to and wants to choose God;

and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined but not in an absolute sense.

Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him, and then He chose them.

Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live--not just the Christians.

Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not.

For whom Christ died has been the long-standing debate between Calvinists and Arminians broadly and between four- and five-point Calvinists narrowly.

And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some Arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).

Calvinism emphasizes the sovereignty of God and his eternal decrees by which he has ordained whatsoever shall come to pass.

Calvinists take the Bible very seriously and try to harmonize all its concepts.

It teaches that salvation is accomplished in God's work alone (; ), and that nothing occurs in the world except that God has given permission ().

Some critics have maintained that Calvinism makes God the author of evil, but Calvinists are quick to deny such an accusation and teach that God is sovereign even over the forces of evil and that he uses evil within his eternal plan for the world and mankind: "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," ().

A final topic to consider is the extent of the atonement. We will examine two issues: for whom Christ died; and for what Christ died. The former concerns the long-standing debate between Calvinists and Arminians broadly and between four- and five-point Calvinists narrowly. The latter has to do with the disagreement between cessationists and continuationists regarding physical healing and the atonement. Upon completion of that discussion we will introduce soteriology and examine its first major subject: the doctrine of election.

The Extent of the Atonement: For Whom did Christ Die?

week under the topic of the atonement we considered three subjects: theories of the atonement; important background truths for the doctrine of the atonement; and the doctrine of Christ’s atonement. A final topic to consider is the extent of the atonement. We will examine two issues: for whom Christ died; and for what Christ died. The former concerns the long-standing debate between Calvinists and Arminians broadly and between four- and five-point Calvinists narrowly. The latter has to do with the disagreement between cessationists and continuationists regarding physical healing and the atonement. Upon completion of that discussion we will introduce soteriology and examine its first major subject: the doctrine of election.

The Extent of the Atonement: For Whom did Christ Die?

For whom did Christ die?

When Christ died on the cross, did he pay for the sins of the entire human race or only for the sins of those who he knew would ultimately be saved?

Those who believe that Christ paid for the sins of the entire world have historically stood for unlimited or universal atonement;

those who believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect have stood for limited atonement or particular redemption.

This is where the acronym TULIP comes to play…the limited or particular position is usually associated with historic five-point Calvinism.

Limited atonement is the L in the acrostic TULIP, we will deal with these later but here they are:

(1) Total Depravity; (2) Unconditional Election; (3) Limited Atonement; (4) Irresistible Grace; and (5) Perseverance of the Saints.

Arminian theology taught:

(1) election based on foreseen faith; (2) the universal merits of Christ; (3) the free will of man due to only partial depravity; (4) the resistibility of grace; and (5) the possibility of a lapse from grace.

Proponents of unlimited or universal atonement are comprised of Arminians (see Governmental Theory above), but not exclusively so; many so-called modified or moderate (four-point) Calvinists insist upon a universal scope for Christ’s atoning death.

(1) Arguments for Limited Atonement

Proponents of limited atonement (or particular redemption) support their view with various arguments:

(a) Limited Atonement Passages in Scripture

First, those who hold to limited atonement point to passages that refer to Christ as dying only for a specific group of people, His own sheep, who are the elect (e.g. , , , , ; ; ; ).

(b) Limited Priesthood and Intercession of Christ

Some assert that Christ’s intercessory work and His sacrificial work are two priestly activities of the same atoning work.

Since Christ only intercedes for the elect (), it follows that they are the only ones for whom He died. The “scope of the one can be no wider than the scope of the other.” 2

Charles Hodge appeals to the OT priesthood as a model for this principle: the OT priests interceded only for those for whom they offered sacrifice— that is, for the covenant people of God. In the same way, Christ prays only for those for whom He atones, and atones only for those for whom He prays.

(c) Logical Consistency

A third argument for limited atonement takes a logical approach.

If Christ died for all the sins of all men, then why aren’t all men saved? (This is why many proponents of limited atonement argue that the logical conclusion for unlimited atonement ought to be universalism.)

If you say, “because of unbelief,” then did not Christ also die for that sin? If so, then why should that sin hinder them more than their other sins?

The only logical explanation is that Christ did not die for all the sins of all mankind, but only for all the sins of the elect, including their sin of unbelief.

(2) Arguments for Unlimited Atonement

(2) Arguments for Unlimited Atonement 4

(a) Unlimited Atonement Passages

Those who hold to unlimited atonement point to all of the passages that speak of Christ’s death in universal terms.

Jesus died for the sins of the world (, ; ).

Jesus died for all ().

Jesus tasted death for everyone ().

Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all ().

God in Christ was reconciling the world to Himself ().

makes the point that all sinned, and the Messiah bore the iniquity of us all. “As sin and iniquity is universal, so also is Christ’s saving provision.”

Another verse that argues for universal atonement is . Here false prophets deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. “Christ’s death paid the penalty for their sin, but it would not become effective for their salvation unless they trusted in Christ as Savior.”

(b) Response to Limited Atonement Passages

Concerning limited atonement passages, just because at times Christ’s death is linked to the specific group of the elect does not mean that it cannot also be linked to all people.

I may say I love my family, or I may say I love my wife, one person in my family. To say one does not cancel out the other.

Or put another way, a positive statement toward one party is not automatically a negative statement toward another.

In the same way, to say that Christ died for the elect does not cancel out the fact that He also died for the world.

Or to say He died for the elect is not automatically to say that He did not die for everyone.

In Paul states that Christ died for him. Does this mean that Christ died only for Paul?

No, just that Christ died specifically for Paul, just as well as for everyone else.

Christ died for the elect as well as for the whole world. Some passages even speak of Christ’s death for both groups, as the next point indicates.

(c) Affirmation of Passages which are Limited and Unlimited

There are several passages that speak of Christ’s death in terms both of the elect and of the world.

According to , God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is God the Savior of all men?

Earlier Paul stated that God desires all men to be saved (2:4) and Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (v. 6).

It seems to make sense, therefore, that because of the universal scope of Christ’s death there is potential salvation for all, but it only becomes actualized for believers.

The universal scope of the atonement reflects an aspect of God’s will which relates to all mankind: God loves all people and does not will that any should perish (; cf. , ).

Similar to Paul in , John writes in that Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

(d) Response Concerning the Priesthood and Intercession of Christ

The OT sacrifices were truly limited in the sense that there was one-to-one correspondence between the sacrifice and the sin and the sacrifice and the sinner.

Furthermore, the sacrifices were limited in the sense that the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices were for God’s covenant people Israel, not for the entire world.

But Christ’s death is unlimited in both of these ways.

First, Christ’s death was sufficient not only to pay for one sin, or the sins of only one man, but for all the sins of all mankind.

Second, Christ’s sacrifice was offered on behalf of all the people of the world, Jew and Gentile alike, not just on behalf of one nation.

Regarding intercession, the fact that Christ prays only for His disciples in does not automatically mean that He does not desire the salvation of any besides the elect.

Before the cross Jesus expressed His desire to save the Jews who rejected His offer and therefore suffered the consequences (; ).

Paul no doubt reflects the heart of God when he prays for the salvation of his unbelieving fellow Israelites ().

Paul later instructs believers to pray for all men as a reflection of God’s own desire for all men to be saved ().

The context here is the exhortation to pray for all men (v. 1), including “kings and all who are 8 in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity” (v. 2).

Thus, the scope of our prayers should reflect the scope of God’s desire for salvation: “all men.”

Remember, therefore, that universal atonement does not just mean that Christ’s death is sufficient for the sins of all; it means that Christ actually died for the sins of all.

(e) Response Concerning Logical Consistency

What can we say about this logical connection between the doctrine of election and limited atonement as it is argued by five-point Calvinists?

Their reasoning appears to be based on a certain understanding of the logical order of God’s decrees…it is the proverbial “which came first the chicken or the egg...

What can we say about this logical connection between the doctrine of election and limited atonement as it is argued by five-point Calvinists? As Erickson points out, their reasoning appears to be based on a certain understanding of the logical order of God’s decrees.

in which order do these occur: Election, Provision for Salvation, Allowing the Fall

Did God elect before he allowed them to fall and then provided the means for salvation?

Did God elect first, create them and allow them to fall?

Did God provide the means for salvation

Did God allow them to fall, create them and then elect them?

The main difference between the three views on the logical order of divine decrees is how each understands God’s decree to elect individuals to salvation, whether before the decrees to permit the fall and provide salvation, between those two decrees, or after them both.

One’s view on the degrees will influence one’s view of election as well as the extent of the atonement.

1. Supralapsarianism

The decree to elect is before the decrees to allow the fall and to provide salvation.

As a result, all men are predestined either to salvation or perdition (double predestination) and Christ died only for the elect (limited scope and application of atonement).

[1] Decree to elect some to salvation and the rest to perdition

[2] Decree to create

[3] Decree to permit the fall

[4] Decree to provide salvation for the elect

Supralapsarianism appears to be ruled out by Jesus’ teaching in and 17:2–12, and by Paul’s in : God elects out of the world of lost humanity.

appears to be ruled out by Jesus’ teaching in and 17:2–12, and by Paul’s in : God elects out of the world of lost humanity. Also, connects election to grace, God’s response to undeserving sinners (cf. ). Thus, the decree of election follows the decrees to create mankind and permit the fall. Furthermore, no verse indisputably teaches election to damnation. 2. Infralapsarianism The decree to elect is between the decrees to allow the fall and to provide salvation. As a result, all men are either predestined to salvation or left to perdition (single predestination) and Christ died only for the elect (limited scope and application of atonement). [1] Decree to create [2] Decree to permit the fall [3] Decree to elect some to salvation [4] Decree to provide salvation for the elect Infralapsarianism appears to be ruled out by passages which give Christ’s death a universal scope (e.g. ; ; , ; ; , ; ). 3. Sublapsarianism The decree to elect is after the decrees to allow the fall and to provide salvation. As a result, all men are either predestined to salvation or left to perdition (single predestination) and Christ died for all of mankind (unlimited scope but limited application of atonement). [1] Decree to create [2] Decree to permit the fall [3] Decree to provide salvation potentially for all [4] Decree to elect some to salvation All three views hold to the unconditional election of individuals to salvation and are thus Calvinist. Those who accept the first two views hold to limited (particular) atonement (Christ died only for the elect). Those who accept the third view hold to unlimited (universal) atonement in scope (Christ died for all people).

Also, connects election to grace, God’s response to undeserving sinners (cf. ).

Thus, the decree of election follows the decrees to create mankind and permit the fall. Furthermore, no verse indisputably teaches election to damnation.

2. Infralapsarianism

The decree to elect is between the decrees to allow the fall and to provide salvation.

As a result, all men are either predestined to salvation or left to perdition (single predestination) and Christ died only for the elect (limited scope and application of atonement).

[1] Decree to create

[2] Decree to permit the fall

[3] Decree to elect some to salvation

[4] Decree to provide salvation for the elect

Infralapsarianism appears to be ruled out by passages which give Christ’s death a universal scope (e.g. ; ; , ; ; , ; ).

3. Sublapsarianism

The decree to elect is after the decrees to allow the fall and to provide salvation.

As a result, all men are either predestined to salvation or left to perdition (single predestination) and Christ died for all of mankind (unlimited scope but limited application of atonement).

[1] Decree to create

[2] Decree to permit the fall

[3] Decree to provide salvation potentially for all

[4] Decree to elect some to salvation

All three views hold to the unconditional election of individuals to salvation and are thus Calvinist.

Those who accept the first two views hold to limited (particular) atonement (Christ died only for the elect).

Those who accept the third view hold to unlimited (universal) atonement in scope (Christ died for all people).

God wills the salvation of all and sent Christ to die for all. In this respect God has a universal, conditional will toward man: He wills the salvation of all people generally on the condition that they believe. Second, however, because of universal human depravity, God has a particular, unconditional will toward His elect.

So while ideally Christ’s atoning death is sufficient for all because He legitimately died for all (atonement universal in scope), in actual outworking it is efficient only for the elect who believe (atonement limited in application).

particular, unconditional will toward His elect. So while ideally Christ’s atoning death is sufficient for all because He legitimately died for all (atonement universal in scope), in actual outworking it is efficient only for the elect who believe (atonement limited in application). 14

So coming back to the logical argument against universal atonement, only if one holds to a supralapsarian or infralapsarian order of God’s decrees does it become logically necessary to hold to both the unconditional election of individuals unto salvation and limited atonement.

(3) Conclusion

For whom did Christ die?

Both of these points must be embraced, and indeed can be; it need not be an either-or proposition. At the beginning of Elwell’s article he states regarding the two views of the atonement, “the choices boil down to two: either the death of Jesus was intended to secure salvation for a limited number or the death of Jesus was intended to provide salvation for everyone.” But these are not either-or 16 propositions; both can be true and both should be embraced as part of the biblical teaching on the atonement. This is why I like Demarest’s framing the issue as a question of the divine intent of the atonement as opposed to the extent of the atonement. Demarest concludes his discussion this way,

We find biblical warrant for dividing the question into God’s purpose regarding the provision of the Atonement and his purpose concerning the application thereof.

“In sum, regarding the question, For whom did Christ die? We find biblical warrant for dividing the question into God’s purpose regarding the provision of the Atonement and his purpose concerning the application thereof. Scripture leads us to conclude that God loves all people he created and that Christ died to provide salvation for all. The provision side of the Atonement is part of the general will of God that must be preached to all. But beyond this, the Father loves the ‘sheep’ with a special love, and in the divine will the Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s death to the ‘sheep,’ or the elect. The application side of the Atonement is part of the special will of God shared with those who come to faith. This conclusion—that Christ died to make atonement for all to the end

Scripture leads us to conclude that God loves all people he created and that Christ died to provide salvation for all.

The provision side of the Atonement is part of the general will of God that must be preached to all.

But beyond this, the Father loves the ‘sheep’ with a special love, and in the divine will the Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s death to the ‘sheep,’ or the elect.

The application side of the Atonement is part of the special will of God shared with those who come to faith. This conclusion—that Christ died to make atonement for all to the end that its benefits would be applied to the elect—coheres with the perspective of Sublapsarian Calvinism.

he application side of the Atonement is part of the special will of God shared with those who come to faith. This conclusion—that Christ died to make atonement for all to the end

It differs from the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian schemes, which teach that Christ died to make provision only for the sins of the elect.

that its benefits would be applied to the elect—coheres with the perspective of Sublapsarian Calvinism. It differs from the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian schemes, which teach that Christ died to make provision only for the sins of the elect. And it differs from the Arminian scheme of decrees, which states that God willed the application of the Atonement to all, but that the divine purpose was frustrated by human resistance. A. H. Strong reflected the biblical perspective when he wrote, ‘Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application through the work of the Holy Spirit.’” 17

And it differs from the Arminian scheme of decrees, which states that God willed the application of the Atonement to all, but that the divine purpose was frustrated by human resistance.

The Extent of the Atonement: For What Did Christ Die?

The twentieth century saw a tremendous growth in interest in physical healing for Christians.

For many charismatic groups, the theological basis for healing is the claim that through His death, Christ made atonement not only for our sins but also for our sicknesses.

Therefore healing of the body is just as much a benefit of the atonement as is salvation of the soul.

For scriptural support many combine with to teach that Christ bore our physical, as well as our spiritual, ailments when He died on the cross. They also point to , claiming that by His stripes (suffering and death on the cross) we are healed (physically). 18

However, when we examine in its context this interpretation does not hold up. The words used in v. 4, ֳחִלי (sickness, grief) and ַמְכאוֹב (sorrow, pain) are repeated from v. 3, where we read that Christ was a man of sorrows (ַמְכֹאבוֹת), acquainted with grief (ֳחִלי).

When Jesus came to this earth and became a man, He entered into the very conditions of fallen humanity, including sorrow, sickness, and suffering.

Thus, speaks of Christ’s sympathetic bearing of the troubles of fallen humanity. According to this verse, Jesus bore our grief and sicknesses by becoming incarnate, not by offering Himself as a sacrifice.

Not until v. 5 do we read of Christ’s suffering and death—and this being clearly for our transgressions (ֶׇׇפּ ַשׁע) and iniquities ( ).ָﬠוֹן

This interpretation is proven accurate when we examine the two NT passages where is quoted.

First, in Jesus healed all who were sick in order to fulfill . Notice that the fulfillment took place, not when Jesus died on the cross, but when He healed the sick during His earthly ministry. Because Jesus was Himself acquainted with the grief and sickness of this world, He sympathized with human suffering and was moved to alleviate the pain of those suffering by healing them (cf. ).

Himself acquainted with the grief and sickness of this world, He sympathized with human suffering and was moved to alleviate the pain of those suffering by healing them (cf. ).

As for (by His stripes we are healed), when we turn to the proper interpretation becomes clear.

Peter is speaking of our present salvation, which is a spiritual healing, not of our physical healing.

By Christ’s death we were healed (ἰάθητε, aorist indicative passive of ἰάομαι). When? At the moment of salvation, when we “returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of [our] souls” (v. 25).

Two final points must be made by way of clarification.

First, ultimately Jesus’ death does cancel all the effects of the fall.

But some of the benefits, namely the physical ones, will not be realized until glory, when we will experience the redemption of our bodies ().

We can take heart that even though our “outer man” (the body) is presently decaying, our “inner man” (the soul) is being renewed day by day. And the time will come when we will receive our new bodies, our “house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (, ).

Second, God can heal people today physically, but when He does He does so freely, not under obligation; healing is not an immediate and automatic result of the atonement here and now; the way of the forgiveness of our sins is when we place our faith in Christ.

Even in the early church when the gift of healing was in operation it was not always God’s plan to heal His people, as and seem to imply and as Paul himself seems to have experienced in and .

The same is true today. However, this will not trouble us when we remember that God does not intend for us to live forever in “the body of our humble estate” that we now possess (). We anticipate something better (see )

Understanding SALVATION

Even though you may have grown up in the church it is possible to not t fully grasp the doctrine of salvation and draw wrong conclusions…so it is important at this juncture, that before we critique the five points of Calvinism we have a working knowledge of this doctrine, especially in the area of election.

The doctrine of salvation is the intersection of several major doctrines of theology.

Here come together theology proper—the person and plan of God the Father, Christology—the person and work of Jesus Christ, pneumatology—the ministry of the Holy Spirit in and on behalf of the redeemed, and anthropology and hamartiology—the nature and the need of sinful mankind before a holy and just God.

A Definition of the Doctrine of Salvation

The doctrine of salvation deals with the application of the redemption made possible by Jesus Christ to sinners who place their faith in Him.

That word application in this definition is important. According to Scripture, the fact that Christ died for all does not mean all will be saved. Universal atonement does not equal universalism, the belief that denies eternal punishment and affirms the ultimate salvation of every human being. The redemption from sin made available by the death of Christ is only effective for certain ones—on the divine side, the elect of God; on the human side, those who place their faith in Jesus Christ alone as the atoning sacrifice for their sins. God provided salvation for all, but applies that salvation only to those who receive it by faith.

2. Elements of the Doctrine of Salvation

The word “salvation” is a broad term used to capture a host of acts and processes related to God’s provision for mankind in time and eternity—elements such as calling, justification, and glorification, just to name the three given by Paul in . Others are 22 repentance, faith (together making up conversion), regeneration, and sanctification.

But what is the order of the application of these various elements of salvation? This discussion is called in Latin the ordo salutis, “order of salvation.” Order is apparent in Scripture because some order is necessary for the application of salvation to take place. Call must come before justification, and justification must come before progressive sanctification, and all three must come before glorification. However, the exact order of certain elements is not so cut and dried. For example, theologians continue to debate the relationship between faith and regeneration. Does faith precede and thus trigger regeneration? Does regeneration come first, making faith possible? Or do they somehow occur simultaneously?

See John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).21 Predestination, also mentioned by Paul here, is actually an antecedent to salvation. We will 22 treat it under the doctrine of election at the beginning of our study of salvation. !9

There is also disagreement regarding the nature of certain elements of salvation. Take for example the doctrine of justification. Is it objective in nature, in the sense that God declares the believing sinner to be righteous in Christ? Or is it subjective, in the sense that man cooperates with God to make himself righteous through holy living?

Furthermore, there is debate concerning the extent of certain elements of salvation—for example, progressive sanctification. At the bottom of the scale, how holy must believers be? Is the fruit of the Spirit (holy thinking and living) necessary in the life of the believer? This question is part of the Free Grace-Lordship Salvation debate. At the top of the scale, how holy can believers be in this life? Is perfection a possibility? Wesley and others thought so. These are just some of the many discussions that arise as we consider the various elements of salvation as it is applied to the believer in Christ Jesus.

3. The Meaning of Salvation

In the OT the verb to save is ָי ַשׁע, which is related to an Arabic root that means “to make wide” or “sufficient,” or “to be in abundance.” It is the opposite of ָצַרר, “to be restricted” 23 or “distressed.” The idea of salvation, then, is being freed from constraint or distress—in 24 a word, deliverance. The OT speaks of general deliverance—deliverance from bondage, 25 enemies, oppressors, and exile, deliverance from fear, and deliverance from want. The OT also knows a theological or spiritual deliverance: God delivers people by forgiving their sins and changing their character (; ). Deliverance comes by a deliverer, which carries with it “an overtone of undeserved mercy.” 26 27

The NT verb is σῴζω, which means “to save,” “keep from harm,” “preserve,” or “rescue.” The related noun σωτηρία is the term from which we derive the doctrine soteriology. It can mean preservation or rescue from natural dangers and afflictions, or from physical disease and want. The verb is used passively meaning “to thrive,” “prosper,” or “get on well.” 28 However, it is used extensively in the NT to mean “deliverance [and] preservation from all spiritual dangers [and] the bestowal of all religious blessings.” 29

Ultimately, salvation is from sin:

BDB, 446.23 TWOT, vol. 1, 414.24 R. E. O. White, “Salvation,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 967. An example where 25 both verbs, “distressed” and “delivered,” are used together is . Further, v. 18 indicates that the Lord delivered Israel from their distress because He was moved to pity by their groaning. TWOT, vol. 1, 414.26 White, “Salvation,” 967.27 BDAG, 982.28 White, “Salvation,” 967.29 !10

“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, he would have sent an economist. If he had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, he would have sent us a comedian or an artist. If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, he would have sent us a politician. If he had perceived that our greatest need was health, he would have sent us a doctor. But he perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death; and he sent us a Savior.” 30

B. THE ANTECEDENT TO SALVATION: THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

Strictly speaking, salvation as an event—the application of Christ’s redemptive work to the believing sinner—starts with the call of God. However, Scripture makes clear that the salvation of sinners began as a plan in the mind of God before the foundation of the world. In Paul thanks God for the Thessalonians, because “God has chosen [them] from the beginning for salvation.” Thus, there is a premundane antecedent to the salvation of sinners in time, namely, the doctrine of election.

1. Types of Election in the NT

There are several types of election, or “choosing,” presented in the NT:

a. Angels are chosen ().

b. Individuals are chosen to an office, such as the Twelve Apostles (). This explains how Judas could be chosen, and yet be an unbeliever (, ).

c. Corporate Israel is chosen to privilege (; cf. , ).

d. The Messiah is chosen: (1) to a unique relation to the Father (); (2) to be the object of the Father’s affection (); and (3) to exercise the messianic office of suffering and triumph (, , ). 31

e. Individual sinners are chosen to salvation in Jesus Christ. This is what we have in mind when we speak of election in relation to the doctrine of salvation.

2. Definitions of Election

Here are three sample definitions of election—two recent, one older—which help clarify what I think we should have in mind regarding the doctrine of election:

D. A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers (Grand 30 Rapids: Baker, 1992), 109. Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 118–19.31 !11

a. “Election concerns the plan or purpose of God, executed in eternity past, to save condemned sinners and restore them to fellowship with himself.” 32

This definition is too broad. Election is just one aspect of God’s eternal plan to save sinners; it should not be defined to encompass the whole plan.

b. “Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure.” 33

This definition is better, seeing as how it focuses on God’s choice of certain people for salvation in eternity past. However, there are a couple of points worth making with regard to election that this definition doesn’t include.

c. “Election is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.” 34

This third definition of Strong’s is the best of the three in my opinion. It makes clear that election is unconditional (“in his sovereign pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them”). It reflects a sublapsarian view in support of unlimited atonement (“he chooses certain out of the number of sinful men”). It distinguishes special grace from common (“recipients of the special grace of his Spirit”). Finally, it acknowledges the role of the human will in salvation (“made voluntary partakers”).

3. Election Terms in the NT

Election as we have just defined it is expressed by various terms in the NT (bold references are of particular interest for the first few terms):

a. ἐκλέγομαι— “to choose, select.” It is used 22 times in NT, 7 for election to salvation (; , ; , ; cf. v. 30; ; ).

From the verb comes the substantival adjective ἐκλεκτός — “chosen, elect.” It is also used 22 times, 17 for those chosen to salvation (e.g. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Another noun from this verb is ἐκλογή, — “choice, election.” Five times it refers to election to salvation (, , ; ; ).

Ibid., 97.32 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 670.33 Strong, Systematic Theology, 779.34 !12

b. προορίζω — “to decide upon beforehand, predestine” (cf. ὁρίζω, “to decide, determine, appoint”). Four of 6 usages refer to predestination to salvation (, ; , ).

c. προγινώσκω — “to know beforehand, foreknow.” Two times it speaks of God’s foreknowing those He would save (, ).

The noun form is πρόγνωσις — “foreknowledge.” According to , we are elect according to God’s foreknowledge.

d. αἱρέω — “to choose.” In we read that God has chosen believers from the beginning for salvation.

e. τάσσω — “to appoint.” According to , as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

4. Six Key Elements of Election

Regarding the election of individual sinners to salvation in Christ, six elements are key:

a. Source of Election

The election of individuals to salvation in Christ finds its source in God Himself. In Paul exclaims, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him.” Peter does something similar in , saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” This follows his previous point that we were “chosen” by God (v. 1).

b. Time of Election

In Paul goes on to say that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.” In , Paul states that “God has chosen [the Thessalonians] from the beginning.” According to , God saved us “according to His own 35 purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”

contains a textual variant that must be considered. Some mss contain ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς 35 (“from the beginning”), while others have ἀπαρχήν (“as first fruits”). UBSGNT4 and NA27 opt for the second reading (cf. ESV). The TR and MT follow the first reading (cf. NASB, NIV). For the rationale of the editors of UBSGNT4, see Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 568. Since the reading is uncertain, not too much weight should be put on this passage to support the time of election. !13

c. Objects of Election

Here it is important to discuss three things: that God elects individuals; that He chooses those already considered fallen; and the debate over double predestination (i.e. whether God elects people to perdition as well as to salvation).

(1) Individuals to salvation

The NT teaches the election of individuals to salvation. In , Jesus speaks of those individuals who had come to believe in Him as having belonged to the Father (v. 6). The Father gave them to the Son (v. 6; cf. 10:29). All that the Father gives the Son come to the Son (6:37). Of all that the Father has given the Son, the Son loses none of them, but raises them up on the last day (v. 39). According to , the ones (οὕς) God predestined are the same ones (τούτους) He also called, and the ones (οὕς) He called are the same ones (τούτους) He also justified, and the ones (οὕς) He justified are the same ones (τούτους) He also glorified. Furthermore, the idea of being conformed to the image of the Son (v. 29) implies a personal application of the promise. 36

(2) Sinful Individuals

In my view the NT teaches the election to salvation of individuals considered fallen and sinful. First, God must elect because of the sinfulness of mankind. According to the doctrine of total depravity, man’s entire nature has been polluted by sin, including his will; thus, according to the doctrine of total inability, sinful man can make no movement toward God, can do nothing to merit God’s favor, and can do nothing to save himself. God Himself must initiate the process of salvation, beginning with His free and gracious election of the sinner (more on unconditional election below).

Second, that God elects to salvation individuals considered fallen and sinful means a doctrine of single election—a modified Calvinism, as opposed to a doctrine of double predestination—in my view an extreme Calvinism (see also next point). Remember, one’s view of election may be directly related to one’s view of the order of the divine decrees (see previous handout on order of the decrees).

Grant R. Osborne (“Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. 36 Pinnick [Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975], 178), against Robert Shank’s corporate view (Life in the Son [Minneapolis: Bethany, 1989], 366), makes this point in upholding individual election in this passage. However, as Arminians, they both agree that the election here is conditional. For a good argument against corporate election see Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Teach Individual Election unto Salvation?” in Still Sovereign, 101–5. !14

Third, the Scriptures themselves indicate that God chooses individuals out of the world of sinful humanity (, ). According to God chooses on the basis of mercy. Mercy is by definition directed toward sinners who deserve God’s wrath, but God withholds punishment and instead by grace blesses undeserving sinners with salvation (see vv. 15, 16, 18, 23). tells us that God’s predestining us is “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (v. 6). Then relates the grace of God to our being undeserving sinners. However, if double predestination is true, “grace plays no part ... because when God decided whom He would choose and whom He would reject, humans were not yet viewed in His mind as sinners in need of grace or deserving of judgment ... sovereign grace gives way to mere sovereignty.” 37

Conversely, the Bible does not present the condemnation of sinners as the result of God’s sovereign choice, but rather His justice, on the basis of the guilt of those condemned (). The Bible never speaks of the doctrine of election in relation to those who are lost, but only to those who are saved. 38

(3) Election to Perdition Passages?

What about God’s hardening of people? Is this not God’s actively choosing to damn someone in their sins? In the case of Pharaoh the Lord predicted he would not permit Israel to go, except by compulsion (), and that He, the Lord, would harden Pharaoh’s heart (4:21). Later we read how Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15) and that the Lord hardened it (9:12). God raised up a hardhearted ruler for His own purposes (), but Pharaoh was held responsible for his own willful hardness against God. Furthermore, in hardening is the opposite of mercy. Therefore, hardening is defined in this context as God’s choice to not show mercy to a sinner who rightfully deserves judgment, not God’s election of an individual to damnation. 39

In and the discussion of the potter and the lump of clay, Paul distinguishes between the vessels of God’s wrath who are “prepared” (κατηρτισμένα, perfect pass. ptc.) for destruction (v. 22), and the vessels of God’s mercy which “He prepared beforehand” (προητοίμασεν, aor. act. ind.) for glory (v. 23). There are three grammatical differences here that I think are intentional and significant: (1) passive versus active voice of the verb; (2) participial versus indicative form of the verb; and (3) non-prefixed versus prefixed form of the verb. This deliberate distinction in wording “suggests that 40 it is not God who reprobated in eternity; rather, sinners prepare themselves for destruction by their own refusal to repent.” 41

prefixed form of the verb. This deliberate distinction in wording “suggests that 40 it is not God who reprobated in eternity; rather, sinners prepare themselves for destruction by their own refusal to repent.” 41

In , the lost stumble and fall because they refuse to believe, “and to this doom they were also appointed” (NASB). They have more likely been appointed to stumble for refusing to believe; they are not likely to have been appointed to unbelief. Now it is true that the phrase “to this they were also appointed” (my translation of εἰς ὅ καὶ ἐτέθησαν) may refer either to their stumbling, to their disobedience, or perhaps to both. “They were appointed” is 42 a divine passive, and if it does refer to the entire preceding thought, it would certainly accord with other Scriptures which teach that God is in control of all things, good and evil, but which at the same time do not exclude human responsibility for those who have rejected Christ (cf. ; ). 43 Nevertheless, a clear indication of an election to damnation, similar to an election to salvation, is not apparent in this text. 44

d. The Basis of Election

Now we must discuss the basis upon which God chooses for salvation.

(1) God’s Will

In Paul tells us two times the basis upon which God chose us: God predestined us “according to the kind intention of His will” (v. 5); and God predestined us “according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (v. 11). Both times Paul uses κατά, plus the accusative, which introduces the norm that governs something. By what norm or standard did God elect us? It was after the standard of the kind intention of His will, and according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will. Later in v. 13 Paul mentions belief as the result of election, not the basis for it (as in the Arminian notion of election based on foreseen faith). God’s will in election is moved by His kind intention (v. 5) and the glory of His grace (v. 6).

The same verb without a prefix in (καταρτίζω) has a prefix in 40 (προκαταρτίζω), which form Paul could have easily used in had he intended to convey an election to perdition (Morris, Romans, 368n106). Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 136.41 Daniel C. Arichea and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from 42 Peter (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 61. See Paul Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 162–63.43 speaks of “judgment from long ago” and of “those who were long beforehand 44 marked out for this condemnation,” perhaps also indicating that while God appoints beforehand the judgment of unrepentant sinners, He does not foreordain people to perdition. !16

(2) God’s Foreknowledge

According to those believers to whom Peter wrote were “chosen according to [κατά] the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Arminians take foreknowledge here as prescience only—God chose those whom He knew would believe (conditional election). But the way Peter uses the term foreknowledge later in the chapter argues for the meaning of foreordination, or God’s planning something ahead of time. In v. 20 Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Christ was ordained to His task in eternity past, but appeared to accomplish it in “these last times.” Mere prescience makes no sense in this verse. As Feinberg asks,

“How could God foresee Christ being the Redeemer without having chosen it to be so?... Are we to imagine that God and Christ had not decided to send Christ as Redeemer, but then saw that Christ would become incarnate and die anyway, so they decided to place these actions in the decree? It is beyond reason to imagine that God first consults what he foresees himself doing before he ordains himself to do it.” 45

We see a thought similar to in Peter’s sermon in : Christ was “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ ἔκδοτον). Here the idea of foreknowledge as foreordination is strong because of how it is linked to the related idea of predetermination.

What about predestination on the basis of foreknowledge in ? Again, foreknowledge here could mean either prescience or foreordination. But on the basis of how foreknowledge is used when God is the subject in and , and based on Paul’s theology of election, particularly in , it’s best to understand God’s foreknowledge of believers as His foreordaining or foreloving them. Paul’s progression, then, would be that God first set His sights on the elect in love, and then marked out their destiny to include salvation and conformity to the image of His Son (the connection between foreknowledge and election). This best fits the context of (as well as ) as that which would offer believers the most comfort and assurance about their salvation, that God is seeing we will be saved from start to finish, as opposed to its resting ultimately on our own decision of faith and ongoing belief, which is not nearly as certain as God’s work. Feinberg asks regarding ,

“In this context, what is Paul most likely saying in verse 29? Is he saying you can be sure your salvation will be completed because God foresaw that you would believe and then put his stamp of approval on what would happen

Feinberg, No One Like Him, 523.45 !17

anyway, i.e., he predestined you because of your foreseen faith? You will be saved because it all ultimately stems from your decision, a decision God foresaw you making. Or is Paul more likely saying you can be sure you will make it to final salvation because God originally decided to enter a loving relationship with you (foreknew you), and on the basis of that decision, he decreed to save you, and then called, justified, and will eventually glorify you? Salvation is all guaranteed because of God’s work on your behalf each step of the way. With the first view, the guarantee comes because of what we will do; but if it ultimately depends on us, that is nowhere near as certain as when it relies entirely on God. On these grounds alone, it is more likely that Paul uses ‘foreknew’ in the sense of relational knowledge, not intellectual foresight.” 46 This understanding of foreknowledge as foreordination fits well with the OT picture of God’s knowledge as His choosing the objects of His love (; cf. ; ; cf. in NT ; ). Furthermore, when the Bible speaks of foreknowledge, it always speaks of believers, never unbelievers. In other words, there is no evidence that God foresaw the belief of certain ones, and elected them on that basis, and that He foresaw the unbelief of others, and did not elect them on that basis. Finally, in Scripture God foreknows people, not information about them. There is no biblical evidence that God 47 elects on the basis of foreseen faith as Arminianism teaches. 48

(3) Conclusion

What this all means, then, is that I hold to God’s unconditional election of certain individual sinners to salvation. It is on the basis of God’s free and gracious choice, His good pleasure (Calvinism), not on the basis of something that God saw in us that merited His choice of us (Arminianism). As says, “We love, because He first loved us” (see again Strong’s definition of election above).

Ibid., 525.46 Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 128.47 There are two more problems with Arminian foreknowledge and election. First, if God foresaw 48 my faith before the world existed, did I really have libertarian free will to choose Christ in time, i.e., absolute power to choose otherwise? It seems not; my choice was determined. Second, then, by what was it determined? If God had to look ahead and see my faith, where does that body of knowledge reside? Outside of God? If so, then does that mean there is some sort of impersonal force or fate more ultimate than God Himself operating outside of God which regulates His behavior? If so, “We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determination by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 679). !18

e. The Goal of Election

The NT is clear that God elects certain sinners to salvation. As we saw in , God chose the Thessalonians for salvation. In , “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” According to , God predestined us to conformity to the image of His Son and to glorification. In God chose us in Christ that we should be holy and blameless before Him, and in v. 5 He predestinated us to adoption as sons. The goal of election is our salvation and conformity to God’s Son; however, as makes clear, God’s election of us to salvation is ultimately “to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” God’s goal for us in election is our good and ultimately His glory; in election to salvation, as in all things, our good is for the glory of God.

f. The Sphere of Election

Election is “in Christ” (, , ; ). “Predestination ‘in Christ’ … affirms God’s purpose to effect salvation through the person and work of Jesus Christ” (, ; cf. ; ). This is part of the plan drawn 49 between Father and Son before the world was made, that the Father would choose His sheep and give them to the Son (), who gives His life for His sheep (10:15), gives them eternal life (v. 28), and will raise them up on the last day (6:40).

5. Cautions regarding Election

We must be careful how we understand and teach election. Note the following cautions:

a. Election is a Doctrine for Believers, Not Unbelievers

Election is not part of the gospel to be preached to unbelievers. It is a doctrine to be taught only to those who have already come to faith in Christ. In our public preaching we should not dodge election passages; however, we should make it clear that the focus of Scripture in evangelism is the responsibility of sinners to accept Christ. In evangelism election is essentially irrelevant. It only becomes relevant once a person 50 is saved. Francis Schaeffer uses the illustration of a temple. A person sees the words “Whosoever will may come” inscribed above the door. This represents our evangelistic message: Christ died for all and all can come to Him for forgiveness if they will. The person heeds the invitation and enters the door for salvation. However, at some point he struggles with whether he really belongs, so we can take him to the basement and show him the foundation stones on which is inscribed, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” His fears are put to rest and he is comforted to learn that his election is sure. The person didn’t come to salvation through the foundation stones

Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 133.49 While this is true, we should nevertheless be prepared to handle questions unbelievers might 50 raise regarding election. !19

but through the door; for Schaeffer this shows that election is not for evangelism but for assuring believers once they have entered the fold. 51

b. Election Does Not Remove the Sinner’s Responsibility to Respond

Related to the previous point, the gospel appeals to the will, because the sinner must choose to come to Christ. When the sinner does not come to Christ it is because he does not want to come. God will hold him responsible for the decision he makes to reject Christ. Jesus lamented over Jerusalem in , “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted [ἠθέλησα] to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it [οὐκ ἠθελήσατε]!” God does not predestine sinners to rebellion; “rather, sinners prepare themselves for destruction by their own refusal to repent” (see ). 52

c. Election Does Not Remove Our Responsibility to Witness

According to , “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” But earlier Paul asks, “How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Election does not eliminate evangelism, but requires it. God has ordained not only the end of salvation for the elect, but the means to that end: the preaching of the gospel by human agency (in spoken or written form). In fact, this should greatly encourage us in our witnessing. As we faithfully 53 54 witness, God will call and save His elect. In God exhorted and encouraged Paul, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you … for I have many people in this city.”

Francis A. Schaeffer, Doctrinal Series: Assurance, audiotape, catalog no. 112.1 (Michigan 51 City, Ind.: L’Abri Cassettes), cited in Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1998), 71. Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 136. The tension between divine election and human will 52 reflects the larger tension in Scripture between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The solution is not to diminish one for the sake of the other but to simply hold them in tension since Scripture presents both sides of the tension as the truth. “The indisputable fact is that God has positively commanded preaching, pleading, and prayer 53 as vehicles God uses to bring the unsaved to Christ (; ; , ; ). More to the point, God has sovereignly ordained the goal of salvation as well as the means or instruments (preaching, witnessing, etc.) for achieving this goal” (ibid., 140, emphasis original). “In fact, the biblical doctrine of election provides the ultimate assurance that our preaching and 54 prayer will succeed” (ibid.).

Core Teaching of Calvinism