Q. 1. “What is meant by
‘the atonement’?”
Whenever we speak of the
atonement, we are using one of the words that the Bible itself uses to describe
the benefits of Christ’s death. The word, at least in the Old Testament, means
“a covering” and reminds us that Christ’s death provides a covering for our
sins before God. The English word refers to the fact that through the death of
Christ, God’s people are “reconciled” or “at one” with Him. The death of
Christ, in other words, is “at-one-ment.” The Bible, of course, uses many other
words such as “ransom,” “reconciliation,” “propitiation,” “satisfaction,” and
“redemption.” All of these words differ somewhat in meaning, but they have this
in common: they indicate that Christ’s death is our salvation. (Rev. Ronald Hanko, “Saved By Grace: A Study
of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA, 2002, p. 98.)
#############################################
Q. 2. “What is the
Reformed truth of Limited (or “Particular”) Atonement?”
When we add the word
“limited” [or “particular”], we are answering the question, “For whom did
Christ die?” Did He die for every single person who ever lived and ever will
live, or did He die only for some people?
The doctrine of limited
atonement teaches that Christ died only for some persons, a “limited” number of
persons. Those who teach this doctrine would agree that the “limitation” on the
atonement is election. In other words, Christ died only for the elect, and it
is only the elect who benefit from Christ’s death …
The doctrine of limited
atonement teaches that Christ by His death actually
saves those for whom He died and does not just make salvation a possibility. In other words, His death is reconciliation with God, satisfaction
for sin, redemption, atonement, and all the rest, and it guarantees eternal life to all those for whom He died. (Rev.
Ronald Hanko, “Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA,
2002, p. 99.)
Check out the following
online pamphlets on this very point:
#############################################
Q. 3. “What sort of
problems are apparent in the teaching that Christ died not for some, but for
absolutely everybody who ever lived
and will live?”
If Christ died for all
without exception, and some still perish, then Christ’s death only makes
salvation possible, but it does not actually save anyone. Something else is
needed for salvation above and beyond the death of Christ. This something else
is usually thought to be man’s choice or decision. That, however, means
salvation is not by Christ alone and
by His blood alone. (Rev. Ronald Hanko,
“Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA, 2002, p. 100.)
#############################################
Q. 4. “Where does
Scripture teach that the death of Christ and His atoning work was particular or
limited to some only?”
Here are some of the main
texts that teach a limited/particular atonement:
Isa. 53:8, 11; Matt.
1:21; 20:28; 26:28; Luke 1:68; 19:10; John 6:37-39; 10:14-15, 26-28; Acts
20:28; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 3:13; Tit. 2:13-14; Heb. 9:28; I Pet. 2:24
#############################################
Q. 5. “How does the
teaching of the free offer of the gospel (or the well-meant offer) deny the
doctrine of Particular Atonement and lead to or imply the error of Universal
Atonement?”
The
theory of the well-meant offer, that is, God’s offer of salvation to all humans
with the desire that all humans be saved, and the heresy of universal atonement
are inseparably linked. If God in the preaching desires all to be saved out of
a love for them all, Christ must have died for all. Theologians are now
pressing this truth upon nominally Reformed theologians and churches that have
committed themselves to the well-meant offer. The theory of the well-meant
offer necessarily implies universal atonement.
The heresy is that God loves all with a saving love (the same love that gave
Jesus to the cross), implying that the reason why some are saved in
distinction from others lies in themselves: they accepted the offer,
whereas the others did not. Hence, salvation is by the will of the sinner.
...
In fact, the gospel presents Christ to all; (externally, but seriously) calls
all hearers to come to Christ for salvation; and promises salvation to all who
come in a true faith. To preach promiscuously “whoever believes will be saved”
does not need nor does it depend upon universal atonement. Those who will
believe are the elect in the audience, whom God will draw by His inner,
efficacious call as the gospel is preached.
To
state the issue bluntly, preaching “whoever believes will be saved” does not
require, or imply, universal atonement. It requires, and implies, atonement for
whomever repents and believes. (Prof. David J. Engelsma, 12/23/17)
The free offer of the
gospel leads to a denial of particular atonement because a salvation that is
intended for all must also be a salvation that is purchased for all. If God,
through the gospel, offers salvation to all who hear along with the intent and
expressed desire to save all, this salvation must be available. If it is not, the
whole offer becomes a farce. If I offer one thousand dollars to each of ten
people, if they will come to my house to pick it up, I had better have it
somewhere in the house, or I am in trouble. If I do not have all the money that
might be needed in the house, I am making a farce of the offer and really
lying. If God offers salvation to all who hear and really earnestly desires
their salvation, He had (I speak as a man) better have that salvation
available. If He does not, the offer becomes a farce. God offers that which He
does not have. This makes God a liar and the offer a fake. Hence, the only
sense one can make out of the offer is to teach a salvation which was earned by
Christ on the cross for everyone. Thus the cross of Christ and the redemption that
He accomplished becomes universal in its extent. It is not surprising that
Dekker argued in the Sixties within his denomination that because the love and
grace of God were general, the atonement was also general. (Prof. Herman C. Hanko, “The History of the Free Offer”—Chapter 11.)
This pestiferous teaching [i.e. ‘the free offer or
well-meant offer of the gospel’] has crept into Reformed theology in recent
years and is an “enemy in the camp” in that it also constitutes a denial of
limited atonement. This error says that God in the gospel makes a sincere and
well-meaning offer of salvation to every person who hears the gospel,
expressing His desire that all be saved.
If this is true, God is a liar in the preaching of
the gospel, for He says what is not true according to the doctrine of limited
atonement. His will as revealed in the cross is not that He desires the salvation
of all men, but of some only, that is, of His elect. Nor did He send His Son
for all men, but for the elect. How, then, can God sincerely say in the gospel
that He wants all men to be saved without contradicting Himself and making
Himself a liar?
Moreover, it is self-evident that if God really
does express in the gospel a desire that all men be saved, the only possible
basis for this can be that in some sense of the word, He also sent Christ to
die for all men. But that is not limited atonement.
Such teaching is explicitly rejected in the Canons of Dordt, as part of the
erroneous teaching of the Arminians (Canons
III/IV, Rejection of Errors, 5). It also does serious damage to the cause of
Calvinism, for it is the teaching of many who claim to believe in limited
atonement, but who actually contradict limited atonement at this very point. (Rev. Ronald
Hanko, “Saved By Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism,” RFPA, 2002, pp.
116-117.)
#############################################
Q. 6. “John Murray asserts that there is a sense
in which ‘Christ died for non-elect persons’ (Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 68).”
[The] holy Scriptures are completely silent with
regard to any non-saving benefits which flowed from the atonement to the
reprobate; and those who presume to be teachers of the holy Scriptures would do
well to imitate that silence and not set about to build such a doctrinal
superstructure upon the foundation of an incidental statement. (Rev. Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free
Offer: A Review”)
Check out also the following critique of Murray’s
view of the atonement that includes the non-elect:
#############################################
Q. 7. “Christ’s satisfaction and covenantal
sponsorship have been an occasion of much good even to the reprobate—e.g. via the gospel much
good has even come to unbelievers because of the ‘restraints’ thereby imposed
on idolatry and ‘hellish impiety.’”
This is actually true. One of the “by-products” of
“saving grace” operating amongst the elect is that a restraining influence
often reverberates right through to the ungodly. Under such circumstances, sin,
instead of parading itself brazenly, only “slinks” along. But to call this
effect “grace” is to make a logical jump the nature of the premises will not
afford. “Suppression of natural propensities” would be a better description.
Even the mafia “watch their step” when the police are around. In a social
climate deeply affected by the Christian ethos, many of the godless ape the
Christian ethic in many ways out of various and complex motives, mainly because
of perceived self-advantage in so doing. (H.
L. Williams, “British Reformed Journal” [“The Free Offer Issue,” Part 7)
#############################################
Q. 8. “I agree that the
wicked abide in unbelief because they themselves choose to do so, foolishly
despising the Savior. My question, however, in the light of Canons III/IV.9, is this: How
can a person be blamed for ‘despising the Savior’ unless that Savior shed His
saving blood also for them? In the high/hyper-Calvinist tradition, it is said
that Jesus’ atoning work is not truly available for or offered to those who are
not elect. But if that is the case, there is no Savior for them that they can
despise. There is no gospel for them. The message they hear is about others,
not about them; there is no possibility of a choice to believe. To echo John
Preston’s words, “Go tell them: Christ is dead for you” … If *that* is the
gospel you preach, surely then unbelief can truly be blamed on
those who reject such a real, personal offer and invitation to salvation?”
The objection to limited atonement expressed in
the question is the burden of the recent big book by David Allen, The
Extent of the Atonement. The argument is that men can be guilty of
unbelief only if in fact Jesus died for
them. The implications are that Jesus’ death is inefficacious, that
the saving efficacy of the cross depends on the will of the sinner, and
that those who are saved by the cross have themselves to thank.
The error is in the assumption: one can be
guilty of unbelief concerning the cross only
if the cross was in reality for him. When the cross is preached to
sinners with the call to believe, everyone is confronted with the cross of
Christ. Regardless whether Christ actually died for him, the sinner is
guilty of despising the cross if he rejects it in unbelief. He does truly
despise the cross with which he was truly confronted. At the same time,
the promise is given in the hearing of all that whoever does believe shall be
saved and will know that the cross was for him personally. The way to know
the cross as for oneself is by believing. Even for the elect, the only way
to know that the cross was for him is by believing.
As for Preston and the other Puritans who thought
to avoid the heresy of saying to every person, “Christ died for you,” by the
silly dodge, “Christ is dead for
you,” they made themselves guilty of the heresy of universal atonement just the
same. Their statement was false. Christ is not dead; He is alive. And
He is not dead for everyone; He died for the elect only. (Prof. David J. Engelsma, December 6, 2017)
#############################################
Q.
9. “I’m wondering if common grace has anything to do with propitiation by
Jesus’ death, because some Reformed people teach that common grace was
purchased by the propitiation. But I can’t find any scripture in the NT which
connects C.G. and propitiation.”
If
grace is umerited favor and it cannot be merited by us, then it has to be
merited by Christ. Hence common grace must teach a universal atonement. Yet
there is no mention in Scripture of Christ dying to merit common grace. Hence,
the defenders of common grace deny the power of the cross, for Christ died for
those who are not saved. (Prof. Herman C.
Hanko, 07/02/2011)
#############################################
Q.
10. “God doesn’t need a legal basis
to extend grace and show favor to men who are outside of Christ, because, (a)
common grace does not remove the guilt of sin, and therefore does not carry
pardon with it; and (b) it does not lift the sentence of condemnation, but only
postpones its execution.” (Louis Berkhof)
(a)
The issue is how God can justly love
the wicked (for whom no atonement is made). For the God who is of purer eyes
than to behold evil and cannot look on sin (Hab. 1:13), it would be unjust to love them outside of Christ.
There goes divine simplicity: an unjust divine love
(b)
The one making this claim needs to prove that this delay is ‘grace’ and not
simply providence, a providence with its own divine purpose, including giving
the wicked more time to heap up more wrath to themselves (Rom. 2:5), develop in
their sin, make themselves ripe for judgment, bring forth any children through
whom the elect will be gathered, be used to test and try the saints, etc. (Rev. Angus Stewart, 12/06/2019)
No comments:
Post a Comment