--------------------
This is a completely useless explanation of a completely useless doctrine. It is typical of what one gets when Calvinists try to explain the Bible. They never want to actually explain the Bible, they want to explain Calvinism. Over and over again.
This is a completely useless explanation of a completely useless doctrine. It is typical of what one gets when Calvinists try to explain the Bible. They never want to actually explain the Bible, they want to explain Calvinism. Over and over again.
Limited Atonement, the third petal of TULIP, is a belief about process, not result. The result of Jesus' sacrificial death is salvation, which is the thing of importance, but Calvinism wants to debate about how those who are saved came to be saved, as if the doctrine would change the outcome.
Therefore, Limited Atonement, like all of Calvinism, is a debate about irrelevant details. None of it matters.
Even though Dr. Sproul finally manages to quote (actually, misquote) a couple of Scriptures in the last paragraph, we must deem this Bad Bible teaching.
----------------------
The doctrine of limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) says that the atonement of Christ was limited (in its scope and aim) to the elect; Jesus did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world. In my denomination, we examine young men going into the ministry, and invariably somebody will ask a student, “Do you believe in limited atonement?” The student will respond by saying, “Yes, I believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all and efficient for some,” meaning the value of Christ’s death on the cross was great enough to cover all of the sins of every person that ever lived, but that it applies only to those who put their faith in Christ. (This is a nonsense statement. To say that God's saving grace applies to those God has saved is a tautology.)
The doctrine of limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) says that the atonement of Christ was limited (in its scope and aim) to the elect; Jesus did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world. In my denomination, we examine young men going into the ministry, and invariably somebody will ask a student, “Do you believe in limited atonement?” The student will respond by saying, “Yes, I believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all and efficient for some,” meaning the value of Christ’s death on the cross was great enough to cover all of the sins of every person that ever lived, but that it applies only to those who put their faith in Christ. (This is a nonsense statement. To say that God's saving grace applies to those God has saved is a tautology.)
However, that statement doesn’t get at the real heart of the controversy, which has to do with God’s purpose in the cross.
There are basically two ways in which to understand God’s eternal plan. One understanding is that, from all eternity, God had a desire to save as many people as possible out of the fallen human race, so He conceived a plan of redemption by which He would send His Son into the world as the sin-bearer for fallen people. Jesus would go to the cross and die for all who would at some point put their trust in Him. So the plan was provisional—God provided atonement for all who take advantage of it, for all who believe. The idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. (This is an objection to a theoretical outcome. The fact is, when Calvin first proposed this as a characterization of his opponents' beliefs in the 15th century, millions of people had already been saved. This makes the objection totally irrelevant.
There are basically two ways in which to understand God’s eternal plan. One understanding is that, from all eternity, God had a desire to save as many people as possible out of the fallen human race, so He conceived a plan of redemption by which He would send His Son into the world as the sin-bearer for fallen people. Jesus would go to the cross and die for all who would at some point put their trust in Him. So the plan was provisional—God provided atonement for all who take advantage of it, for all who believe. The idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. (This is an objection to a theoretical outcome. The fact is, when Calvin first proposed this as a characterization of his opponents' beliefs in the 15th century, millions of people had already been saved. This makes the objection totally irrelevant.
But more to the point, the testimony of Scripture has always admitted that salvation would not fail, that there would be a people for Himself, and that a remnant would live. Here's what Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist prophesied:
Lk. 1:68-74 Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people. 69 He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David 70 as he said through his holy prophets of long ago, 71 salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us — 72 to show mercy to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, 73 the oath he swore to our father Abraham, 74 to rescue us from the hand of our enemies...
Zechariah's broad inclusive statement reveals a universality to the concept of the coming of salvation. Paul writes of it:
Tit. 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
We know that not everyone believed in the first century, and not everyone will believe today. Thus we can certainly speak of salvation being unlimited in purpose without violating the idea that some will not be saved.
But the telling objection made by Dr. Sproul: "God’s plan could be frustrated..." This is dishonest. Dr. Sproul presumes his doctrine in his objection, that God's plan is to predestine those who would be saved. This would mean that if God didn't predestine salvation, that would frustrate God's plan to predestine salvation. This is a nonsense argument.
Further, we know God's desire will not be achieved:
2Pe. 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Dr. Sproul uses the word "frustrated," but in actual fact God's desire will not be totally fulfilled, since some will indeed perish.)
This is the prevailing view in the church today—that Jesus died for everybody provisionally. (This "prevailing view" doesn't ever use the word "provisionally.")
In the final analysis, whether salvation happens depends on each individual person. (In a sense, yes:
Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...
Even the Jews of that day, despite being God's chosen people, still had the obligation to choose for themselves.)
The Reformed view understands God's plan differently. It says that God, from all eternity, devised a plan that was not provisional. It was a plan "A" with no plan "B" to follow if it didn't work. (Those who do not believe in predestination do not assert a "plan B.")
Under this plan, God decreed that He would save a certain number of people out of fallen humanity, people whom the Bible calls the elect. In order for that plan of election to work out in history, He sent His Son into the world with the specific aim and design to accomplish redemption for the elect. (Waaait. If the Elect were chosen by God to be saved, why would Christ's redemption even be necessary? The Elect are going to be saved no matter what.)
This was accomplished perfectly, without a drop of the blood of Christ being wasted. (How is it possible that Christ's blood would be wasted? This is nonsense. The quantity of Christ's blood is irrelevant; the quality of Christ's blood is the operative factor.)
Everyone whom the Father chose for salvation will be saved through the atonement.
The implication of the non-Reformed view is that God doesn’t know in advance who is going to be saved. (Perhaps true, but not necessarily.)
The implication of the non-Reformed view is that God doesn’t know in advance who is going to be saved. (Perhaps true, but not necessarily.)
For this reason, there are theologians today saying, “God saves as many people as He possibly can.” (Now we are arguing about what nameless theologians supposedly are saying.)
How many people can God save? How many people does He have the power to save? If He is really God, He has the power to save all of them. How many people does He have the authority to save? Cannot God intervene in anyone’s life, just as He did in Moses’ life, Abraham’s life, or the Apostle Paul’s life, to bring them into a saving relationship with Him? He certainly has the right to do that. (Dr. Sproul now jumps on the theoretical, while having previously dismissed it.)
We cannot deny that the Bible speaks about Jesus dying for “the world.” John 3:16 is the premier example of a verse that uses this language. But there is a counterbalancing perspective in the New Testament, including John’s Gospel, that tells us Jesus laid down His life not for everyone but for His sheep. (Where in John's gospel? Well, John chapter 10. As we read it we discover that the phrase "not for everyone" is not found.
We cannot deny that the Bible speaks about Jesus dying for “the world.” John 3:16 is the premier example of a verse that uses this language. But there is a counterbalancing perspective in the New Testament, including John’s Gospel, that tells us Jesus laid down His life not for everyone but for His sheep. (Where in John's gospel? Well, John chapter 10. As we read it we discover that the phrase "not for everyone" is not found.
A discerning Bible student would then ask the question, "who are the sheep?" They are Israel:
Ez. 34:30-31 "Then they will know that I, the LORD their God, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people," declares the Sovereign LORD. 31 "You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
Every Jew listening to Jesus would be well acquainted with the sheep imagery, which is why Jesus used it. So when He claimed to be the Gate [Jn. 10:7], and later the Good Shepherd [Jn. 10:11], the Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, and they were divided [Jn. 10:19], with some claiming He was demon-possessed.
Those Jews who recognized Jesus and believed are His sheep. They are the "children of the promise" Paul described:
Ro. 9:8 ...it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
The "children of the promise" are the first century Jews, the sheep who heard Jesus' voice and entered into the sheep pen. They were predestined. We are the "other sheep" [Jn. 10:16].
We must not insert ourselves into every Bible verse. It's not always about us.)
Here in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks about His sheep as those whom the Father has given Him.
In John 6, we see that Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), and the word translated as “draws” properly means “compels.” (If this verse means that the Father compels those He has chosen, then what would Dr. Sproul do about this:
Jn. 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
If drawing is being compelled, then everyone will be compelled.)
Jesus also said in that chapter, “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37). (Sigh... Dr. Sproul was a Bible scholar of great repute. Did he not understand context? In this section of the text Jesus is addressing His fellow Jews:
Jn. 6:36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
Who are those the Father gives to Jesus? Those Jews who are the "children of the promise." Only these Jews, the remnant of Israel, are chosen. They are the "objects of His mercy:"
Ro. 9:22-24 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath — prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
The two "objects" are Israel and the gentiles. One is intended for glory, the other for destruction. Israel is predestined, yet the "objects of His wrath," the gentiles, receive His patience. Why? Because those who believe will be grafted into the vine [Ro. 11:17].
The remnant of Israel is predestined, and the gentiles who believe are grafted in.)
His point was that everyone whom the Father designed to come to His Son would come, and no one else. Thus, your salvation, from start to finish, rests on the sovereign decree of God, (Where does the Bible say this?)
who decided, in His grace, to have mercy on you, not because of anything He saw in you that demanded it, but for the love of the Son. The only reason I can give under heaven why I’m a Christian is because I’m a gift of the Father to the Son, not because of anything I’ve ever done or could do.
No comments:
Post a Comment