Particular Redemption - Part 2 of 7
This is the second of a series of articles articulating the Doctrine of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. The author concedes this doctrine is controversial and not universally recieved. I ask for your grace in exploring the merits of this doctrine.
The doctrine of the limited atonement has been a controversial doctrine and has sparked wide debate among Christians in general and Baptists in particular for centuries. In early Baptist history the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to general atonement divided Baptists into two distinct and separate groups. The name of the two groups identified where they stood on the issue of the atonement of Christ. One group of Baptists was named “General Baptists” (General Atonement) and the other group was named “Particular Baptists” (Particular or Limited Atonement). The purpose of this paper is to introduce the subject of the limited atonement, defend the biblical teaching of the limited atonement, establish the historical development and influence among Baptists, clarify the definition of the doctrine of limited atonement, address common objections to the doctrine including difficult passages, and to assert the necessity of holding this view in maintaining pure motives in evangelism and missions. (All of these topics will be covered in the seven posts) All Scripture cited in this paper is from the New King James Version unless otherwise stated.
To introduce the subject of the limited atonement, this paper presupposes the doctrine of unconditional election. Election is not the subject being considered, however, election is inseparable from limited atonement and limited atonement is inseparable from election. For my Baptist brothers who struggle with the doctrine of election, refer to the text of scripture in John’s gospel chapters six, ten, and seventeen, Romans chapters eight through eleven, and Ephesians chapters one and two. Additionally, please refer to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which states; “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”[1] Thus we conclude that election is not only biblical but is also consistent with historic Baptist beliefs and confessions.
To further introduce the subject of the atonement of Christ being limited or efficient to the elect of God we state that Christ was literally the substitute for the elect and propitiated the wrath of God for them. The objection is then raised; if Christ propitiated the sins of the elect on the cross then they are already saved before they are born. Yes, there is truth in this statement. The truth of this statement is what is referred to as the covenant of grace.
However, the elect are born in sin and live for a time in a lost state under the wrath and judgment of God for their own sins but in time the Holy Spirit works effectually and savingly in the elect to bring them to repentance and faith in Christ. At that time, the merits of Christ’s atonement are actually applied to the elect sinners and they are justified by faith in Christ. In essence, the limited atonement speaks of the role of Christ fulfilling His role in the Triune God’s plan for redemption. The Father graciously elects a definite and particular people and gives them to the Son. The Son then redeems them by His blood on the cross, thus atoning for their sins, and the Holy Spirit effectually calls them through regeneration so that they willfully and immediately turn from their sins through repentance and place their faith in Christ as Savior unto justification.
Dr. Roy Hargrave, senior pastor of Riverbend Community Church offers the following statements and definitions of limited atonement in a class lecture titled the “Doctrines of Grace” as taught at Riverbend Bible Institute. “Limited atonement does not mean that there is a limit to the value or merit of Christ’s atonement. Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all who trust Him and they will receive the full measure of the benefits of His atoning work.” Hargrave goes on to state, “Christ’s death was a substitutionary death in which He actually paid for the sins (propitiation) of the elect. The doctrine of limited atonement is concerned with the original purpose, design, or plan of God in sending Christ to die on the cross. The big question regarding limited atonement is; was it God’s intent to make salvation possible for everyone, allowing for the possibility that it would be effective for no one (unlimited atonement), or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?”[2] The Bible states clearly that God has an eternal purpose and plan for salvation that is being accomplished by His sovereign decree and for the glory of His grace.
[1] Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article 5 “Of God’s Purpose of Grace”
[2] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 43
The doctrine of the limited atonement has been a controversial doctrine and has sparked wide debate among Christians in general and Baptists in particular for centuries. In early Baptist history the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to general atonement divided Baptists into two distinct and separate groups. The name of the two groups identified where they stood on the issue of the atonement of Christ. One group of Baptists was named “General Baptists” (General Atonement) and the other group was named “Particular Baptists” (Particular or Limited Atonement). The purpose of this paper is to introduce the subject of the limited atonement, defend the biblical teaching of the limited atonement, establish the historical development and influence among Baptists, clarify the definition of the doctrine of limited atonement, address common objections to the doctrine including difficult passages, and to assert the necessity of holding this view in maintaining pure motives in evangelism and missions. (All of these topics will be covered in the seven posts) All Scripture cited in this paper is from the New King James Version unless otherwise stated.
To introduce the subject of the limited atonement, this paper presupposes the doctrine of unconditional election. Election is not the subject being considered, however, election is inseparable from limited atonement and limited atonement is inseparable from election. For my Baptist brothers who struggle with the doctrine of election, refer to the text of scripture in John’s gospel chapters six, ten, and seventeen, Romans chapters eight through eleven, and Ephesians chapters one and two. Additionally, please refer to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which states; “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.”[1] Thus we conclude that election is not only biblical but is also consistent with historic Baptist beliefs and confessions.
To further introduce the subject of the atonement of Christ being limited or efficient to the elect of God we state that Christ was literally the substitute for the elect and propitiated the wrath of God for them. The objection is then raised; if Christ propitiated the sins of the elect on the cross then they are already saved before they are born. Yes, there is truth in this statement. The truth of this statement is what is referred to as the covenant of grace.
However, the elect are born in sin and live for a time in a lost state under the wrath and judgment of God for their own sins but in time the Holy Spirit works effectually and savingly in the elect to bring them to repentance and faith in Christ. At that time, the merits of Christ’s atonement are actually applied to the elect sinners and they are justified by faith in Christ. In essence, the limited atonement speaks of the role of Christ fulfilling His role in the Triune God’s plan for redemption. The Father graciously elects a definite and particular people and gives them to the Son. The Son then redeems them by His blood on the cross, thus atoning for their sins, and the Holy Spirit effectually calls them through regeneration so that they willfully and immediately turn from their sins through repentance and place their faith in Christ as Savior unto justification.
Dr. Roy Hargrave, senior pastor of Riverbend Community Church offers the following statements and definitions of limited atonement in a class lecture titled the “Doctrines of Grace” as taught at Riverbend Bible Institute. “Limited atonement does not mean that there is a limit to the value or merit of Christ’s atonement. Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all who trust Him and they will receive the full measure of the benefits of His atoning work.” Hargrave goes on to state, “Christ’s death was a substitutionary death in which He actually paid for the sins (propitiation) of the elect. The doctrine of limited atonement is concerned with the original purpose, design, or plan of God in sending Christ to die on the cross. The big question regarding limited atonement is; was it God’s intent to make salvation possible for everyone, allowing for the possibility that it would be effective for no one (unlimited atonement), or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people?”[2] The Bible states clearly that God has an eternal purpose and plan for salvation that is being accomplished by His sovereign decree and for the glory of His grace.
[1] Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article 5 “Of God’s Purpose of Grace”
[2] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 43
posted by Christopher Redman at 11:31 PM
5 Comments:
Preach on Brother! Allow me to thank you in advance for these posts. I might have to lean on it a bit when I get to that section in this Bible study I'm leading.
May the Lord set the Word ablaze in the hearts and minds of your flock on the 'morrow...
Much Grace
Josh
CR,
Thank you for alerting me to your posts. As I said on my site, I have intentions of dealing with the "L" in the near future.
I do admire your frankness in the very beginning, CR. You write : "The doctrine of the limited atonement has been a controversial doctrine and has sparked wide debate among Christians...for centuries." Many of your Calvinist kin will not be as froward, I assure you.
And, even more telling for me, is the interesting fact that some of the staunchest defenders of unlimited atonement are Calvinists themselves. This seems to indicate a not too flimzy case for the opposition, would you not agree, CR?
I must record my disappointment on one note. Unfortunately, in introducing your subject, there seems to be, at least from my personal perspective, two weaknesses.
First, to tie the doctrine of atonement intrinsically to another doctrine may be one of the weakest proofs Calvinists offer. Dr. White, in his debate with Dave Hunt, spent almost his entire space arguing for the limited aspect of the atonement based on its alledged implication from Jesus' role as High Priest. This tactic even Calvinists themselves are beginning to question.
For example, two Calvinist theologians--Professors Robert Peterson & Michael Williams--write in their recent book, "Why I am Not an Arminian" this telling confession: "Calvinists have not always argued well for limited atonement". And, after citing one weak argument Calvinists employ, they write this: "Another less than convincing argument for limited atonement involves deduction from other doctrines."
Thus, we may conclude that while one doctrine can be related to another, that does not constitute positive proof for it. Rather, the doctrine itelf must be able to stand on its on theological feet. Am I mistaken here, brother CR?
Secondly, but less significantly, CR, you framed the definition for the doctrine of limited atonement based upon one Pastor's definition, rather than perhaps more recognizable, mainstream theologians and/or scholarship.
I trust your Lord's Day morning went well, my Brother CR. What delicious dish of God's Word do you propose for your congregants this evening? With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Of the two weaknesses you mention -
1) I agree that a doctrine should stand on its own merit but the criteria for this is determined by the text and not what various scholars have said about it. Secondly, if the text reveals election and the elect are whom God planned to save through the atonement, it seems rather difficult to express the focus and design of the atonement without acknowledging the ones for whom it was designed.
It is my belief that the Doctrines of Grace stand together or fall together. Therefore, I don't have the same opinion as you in forcing their separation and independance from each other.
2) One reason that I cite Dr. Hargrave's definition is because I agree with it and think that it sufficiently deals with the subject that I am expressing.
Hargrave will be quoted again along with Nettles and others such as Gill and Spurgeon. But, Hargrave's definition is sufficient for my purpose. I honestly have not read or interacted with every book written on the subject but am pleasantly at peace with what I have read and the testimony of scripture.
My message today was in John 15 and the Lord was especially gracious today.
Thank you,
Chris
CR,
Sometimes, I fear CR, our differences go much deeper than I had hoped.
First, I do not think I implied that if a text deals with election, then we should ignore it. And I most certainly agree that we take the very words of Scripture seriously.
Rather, my concern was to deal with Biblical Atonement as Atonement, not as deduced--or what's logically consistent from something else in some other text. That's all. BTW, have you read Why I am Not an Arminian by Peterson & Williams?
Secondly, to say that the doctrines of grace stand or fall together, goes against, CR, so much of what you have written in our correspondence thus far.
Remember our conversation about Double Predestination? There you explicitly denied logical consistency a role, pleading that logic goes only so far. Here, however, you hang Biblical soteriology upon it. Why the insistence upon logic with the DsG?
From my perspective, if that line of argument is assumed, logical consistency has bumped divine revelation off center stage. And while I myself believe consistency is very significant, you, CR, have sometimes taken pains to deny it.
Finally, I wish I could have the most honorable priviledge, CR, of accepting definitions based upon my particular liking--especailly with my wife. "Honey, we need a new lawn mower", I say. She says, "OK"
Of course, I know her definition of a new lawn mower, but I like my neighbor's better. Her's is a silly old 3 hp push mower. His is a 40" cut, 29hp John Deer tractor. I'm going with his definition.
That's why we have standard works, CR. Not "every work" out there.
I am glad you are watering the flock from John's well. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Maybe we are closer on certain points than others. I have not yet dealt with the texts of scripture that I feel support particular redemption. I'm sorry that you feel that I've been inconsistent. However, from my perspective, I'm being faithful to the text.
For example, I find the whole of scripture revealing the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace. I have clear, biblical texts to support this position. Not just a few here and there mind you but entire passages, major portions of scripture revealing these truths over and over again. I don't embrace the doctrines of grace as a whole merely because of the logic, but rather because of the consistent witness of scripture.
But, in the case of double predestination, I reject it not because I reject the logic of it but primarily because I reject the stain on the character of God. God's not responsible for sinners going to hell, the sinner is responsible. God is sovereign but man is responsible. This is not logical but it is still true.
I don't have a problem with logic and theology. I simply stop the logic where scripture stops. I think we have talked about this before.
BTW, exactly what is the problem with Hargrave's definition of limited atonement? Does it not convey the two positions (unlimited vs. limited) clearly?
Perhaps, you would be more satisfied after the next post or two. (I'll post the next one tomorrow and subsequent posts every two days.)
Oh, and no I haven't read "Why I'm not an Arminian". Sounds good. Maybe I'll pick it up before to long.
Good evening,
Chris
P.S. - I was able to share the gospel this evening with a person who is lost and in their 70's. It was very exhilerating!
Post a Comment
<< Home