Particular Redemption - Part 5 of 7
Please accept my apology for the long pause between posts 4 and 5. I have had to step back and prioritize some important responsibilities in life and ministry. - Chris
In previous posts, we have introduced the subject of particular redemption, provided some statements clarifying the nature and design of the atonement, laid out some biblical citations that provide support and context for the doctrine, and we have established some of the historical influence among Baptists in the past leading up to the founding of the SBC.
In this post, we will clarify the definition of limited atonement and explore further biblical support.
To continue exploring this biblical doctrine, we must now clarify the definition of limited atonement. This doctrine is often rejected simply on the basis of rejecting the implication or impression received in the term “limited atonement” itself. It is kind of like the old adage, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” For many who view this doctrine; they begin with strong feelings of resistance because they don’t want to think of diminishing the power or value of Christ’s blood. However, everyone who believes that not all men, universally are going to heaven because of Christ’s atonement believe in a limited atonement. As stated by Samuel E. Waldron, “Arminians limit its efficacy by saying that man by his free will can limit the effects of the atonement. Calvinists limit its extent. The question is not, therefore, whether the atonement is limited, but whether it is limited in its extent or its efficacy. The question is this: ‘In whose place did Christ substitute Himself?’”[1]
This brings us really to the heart of Christ’s substitutionary atonement by examining the biblical term, “propitiation”. “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). In the eternal council of God He chose to save, to redeem sinners, and to provide salvation for the lost. However, this redemption could be provided only in the satisfaction of God’s holy nature, namely His justice; “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26).
The atonement fulfills the requirement of God’s holy justice by propitiating God. The term propitiate means to placate, pacify, appease, or conciliate. “Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that He turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath Himself at Calvary.”[2] In other words, “Christ satisfied God’s justice by actually suffering in our place, representatively and as a substitute bearing the penalty or punishment which God in His justice demanded of sinners – Death (Romans 6:23) – Eternal death in hell, the place where God utterly abandons sinners.”[3] Now the question begs to be answered, for whom did Christ die; for no one, for everyone, or for those who believe (the elect)? As Spurgeon argued previously, if God punished the sins of those who die lost in the propitiation of Christ’s atonement and then casts them into hell, those sins are now being punished twice! “How can those for whom Christ bore their curse ever bear the curse themselves? Did God in Christ actually redeem, reconcile, and propitiate His anger against us on the cross?”[4]
Dr. Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this concise definition: "In short, limited atonement (particular redemption) affirms that Jesus Christ in dying bore the sins of his people, enduring all the punishment that was due to them by becoming the curse that the law demanded. It pleased the Lord to bruise him for this purpose, for in so doing he gained - by his meritorious death - forgiveness, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal glory for a large and definite number of people, all of whom he knew and to whom he was joined before the foundation of the world."
Some common objections to this doctrine include someone stating that men do not go to hell because of their sins, they go to hell for rejecting Christ. “In the general atonement,” they say, “Christ atoned for every sin except the sin of rejecting Christ.” Are we to assume that there are some sins that Christ atoned for and others that He did not atone for? So, a murderer does not go to hell for murder, only for rejecting Christ. Adolf Hitler does not go to hell for mass murder, only for rejecting Christ. No one goes to hell for their sins, only for rejecting Christ? If these assertions are true, what about those who never heard the gospel and die in their sins? Are we to assume that the heathen go to heaven having never heard the gospel, never believed, and having never been given the ability to believe or reject Christ? If so, why do we send missionaries around the world?
[1] Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Evangelical Press, 1989
[2] Douglas, J.D. and Merrill C. Tenney, The New International Dictionary of the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. 1987. p. 828.
[3] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 45
[4] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 47
In previous posts, we have introduced the subject of particular redemption, provided some statements clarifying the nature and design of the atonement, laid out some biblical citations that provide support and context for the doctrine, and we have established some of the historical influence among Baptists in the past leading up to the founding of the SBC.
In this post, we will clarify the definition of limited atonement and explore further biblical support.
To continue exploring this biblical doctrine, we must now clarify the definition of limited atonement. This doctrine is often rejected simply on the basis of rejecting the implication or impression received in the term “limited atonement” itself. It is kind of like the old adage, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” For many who view this doctrine; they begin with strong feelings of resistance because they don’t want to think of diminishing the power or value of Christ’s blood. However, everyone who believes that not all men, universally are going to heaven because of Christ’s atonement believe in a limited atonement. As stated by Samuel E. Waldron, “Arminians limit its efficacy by saying that man by his free will can limit the effects of the atonement. Calvinists limit its extent. The question is not, therefore, whether the atonement is limited, but whether it is limited in its extent or its efficacy. The question is this: ‘In whose place did Christ substitute Himself?’”[1]
This brings us really to the heart of Christ’s substitutionary atonement by examining the biblical term, “propitiation”. “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). In the eternal council of God He chose to save, to redeem sinners, and to provide salvation for the lost. However, this redemption could be provided only in the satisfaction of God’s holy nature, namely His justice; “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26).
The atonement fulfills the requirement of God’s holy justice by propitiating God. The term propitiate means to placate, pacify, appease, or conciliate. “Propitiation is something done to a person: Christ propitiated God in the sense that He turned God’s wrath away from guilty sinners by enduring that wrath Himself at Calvary.”[2] In other words, “Christ satisfied God’s justice by actually suffering in our place, representatively and as a substitute bearing the penalty or punishment which God in His justice demanded of sinners – Death (Romans 6:23) – Eternal death in hell, the place where God utterly abandons sinners.”[3] Now the question begs to be answered, for whom did Christ die; for no one, for everyone, or for those who believe (the elect)? As Spurgeon argued previously, if God punished the sins of those who die lost in the propitiation of Christ’s atonement and then casts them into hell, those sins are now being punished twice! “How can those for whom Christ bore their curse ever bear the curse themselves? Did God in Christ actually redeem, reconcile, and propitiate His anger against us on the cross?”[4]
Dr. Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this concise definition: "In short, limited atonement (particular redemption) affirms that Jesus Christ in dying bore the sins of his people, enduring all the punishment that was due to them by becoming the curse that the law demanded. It pleased the Lord to bruise him for this purpose, for in so doing he gained - by his meritorious death - forgiveness, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal glory for a large and definite number of people, all of whom he knew and to whom he was joined before the foundation of the world."
Some common objections to this doctrine include someone stating that men do not go to hell because of their sins, they go to hell for rejecting Christ. “In the general atonement,” they say, “Christ atoned for every sin except the sin of rejecting Christ.” Are we to assume that there are some sins that Christ atoned for and others that He did not atone for? So, a murderer does not go to hell for murder, only for rejecting Christ. Adolf Hitler does not go to hell for mass murder, only for rejecting Christ. No one goes to hell for their sins, only for rejecting Christ? If these assertions are true, what about those who never heard the gospel and die in their sins? Are we to assume that the heathen go to heaven having never heard the gospel, never believed, and having never been given the ability to believe or reject Christ? If so, why do we send missionaries around the world?
[1] Waldron, Samuel E. A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Evangelical Press, 1989
[2] Douglas, J.D. and Merrill C. Tenney, The New International Dictionary of the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. 1987. p. 828.
[3] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 45
[4] Dr. Roy Hargrave, The Doctrines of Grace, Riverbend Bible Institute Course #104, p. 47
posted by Christopher Redman at 10:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home