Ok, I finished READING the chapter on Limited Atonement. The doctrine of Limited Atontement is essentially that Christ's death on the cross secured the salvation of those only that were previously unconditionally elected - That when Christ died, God the Father's wrath was appeased for the sins of His elect. The reprobates, those that God was not going to save, did not receive any direct benefit from the work on the cross. Christ's blood did nothing for their sins.
This is considered by many to be the most controversial point of the system, and as a result there are many 4-point Calvinists. The problem is that the Bible on many occasions says that Christ died for the whole world. 1 John 2:2 is probably the most deifficult for the Calvinist where it says that Christ is the propitiation not just for "our" sins, but also for the sins of the "whole world." Here the definition of the world has to be meant to be referring to Gentiles, and not Jews only. There are many other verses that say that Christ died for the world, or that He is the Saviour of the wordld, etc.
Vance's suggestion is that the Calvinist misunderstands the work of the Atonement vs. the application of the atonement. He uses the illustration of the Passover (and, yes, Christ is our Passover), and explains tihat killing the Lamb was sufficient sacrifice for everyone, but that it had to be applied to the door for the house to be spared.
Calvinists would argue that if a person's sins (the non-elect) were atoned for at the cross, and then the person spent eternity in hell anyway, that would be double-jeopardy - they're paying for sins already paid for. But, like the Passover, it seems like sufficient payment was made (all the Calvinists say, Amen) yet it is not applied to a person's account until regeneration.
My understanding (ignorant as it is) is that the work of the cross did not, in time, forgive the sins. But rather when a person comes to faith in Christ, that is when the sins are forgiven, and the atonement is applied. Even Calvinists would agree that a lost person that is one of God's elect, is the child of wrath until he is saved. If his sins were already forgiven at the time of the cross, then why would he be considered a child of wrath? And beyond that, if his sins were forgiven at the cross, then truly he has no sins from which he needs to repent. I'm sure there are answers for these kinds of questions, but to me, this does not fit with the clear testimony of Scripture on this particular point.
Anyway - those are my thoughts on this chapter - 2 to go!
12 comments:
Andy, i've asked this of several people and haven't yet got a clear answer on it, so i'm hoping i can get some insight from you. more for my knowledge and understanding than to argue your point. How do you reconcile this 'My understanding (ignorant as it is) is that the work of the cross did not, in time, forgive the sins. But rather when a person comes to faith in Christ, that is when the sins are forgiven, and the atonement is applied' To the teaching of the age of accountability? for if a childs sins are not forgiven and never reaches the point of where atonement is applied, how can he be accepted in to heaven?
thanks.
My understanding, some of which I have Scripture for, some of which I do not:
Starting with Scripture, Paul said in Romans 7 that he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, "sin revived and I died." I understand that passage to say that when the child reaches that "age of accountability" he is then held responsibile, and obviously guilty for actual sin, not inherited (original) sin. There are the verses that say the son will not be punished for the sins of the father, but the soul that sinneth it shall die - I haven't looked into them closely, but I could see how they would fit.
So, in regards to the atonement - this is where I personally have to depart from Scripture and begin to rationalize - it seems that the work of atonement actually satisfied the guilt of original sin, but without faith, actual sin is still applied... Again, my rationalization.
My turn: The Bible says that a person can only be saved by having faith in Jesus Christ. How does an infant that ides ever get saved? My understanding is that the infant wasn't in fact lost in the same sense of a person that reaches the age where they willfully, with understanding sin against God.
Part of the reason i was asking was that i had read your other calvinism posts, specifically the one on total depravity from back in June and in that post you state(which i agree with) that man inherited adams sinful nature Rom. 5:12-21 etc.... if you are guilty for actual sin but not original sin then why would Jesus need to come as the 'second adam' (1 Cor. 15:45) and a representative for all mankind if all mankind was not damned by Adam's original sin?
i guess i understand your rationalization, however i think that you would agree with me that if something has to be rationalized because scripture does not support it then it's tough for me to comment on it as it is not usually accepted as support to a taught doctrine;) Paul, when writing Romans (my understanding of that passage) was speaking of his adult life not of when he was a child '11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me' he was deceived in his understanding of the law and realized his sin once God fully revealed to him. Paul was still responsible for his actions prior to that revelation wasn't he?
on the other hand your question is an easy one;) if God has made a child one of the elect he goes to heaven, if he hasn't he goes to hell. but i suppose you would like a little more than that statement;)
Gen. 17:7 children are included in God's covenant with their parents, e.g. believing parents are covenanted with God and as such their children fall under that covenant, 1 Corinthians 7:14... whether old covenant or new.
I think much of the "Calvinist/Arminian" debate ends up going to rationalization. Both sides are using the same Bible, but it's the way that they take what they are reading that often goes into logic, not exegesis. 1 John 2:2 in the Calvinist theology is a good example as written in my post...
I don't understand your question of 'if you are guilty for actual... by Adam's original sin?' Could you rephrase that for me so I get what you're asking? Thanks.
As for the children of believing parents being part of the covenant God made with the parents, then the whole world should be saved by now. If every believer since Christ bore children that were elected, therefore their children must also be elect, and theirs, etc. Then, when an adult non-believer that had never come from a saved line was converted, from that point out his children, and children's children, etc. would be part of the covenant as well...? Maybe there's more to it that you didn't include in this small format?
Also, to say that any person can be saved from their actual sin without faith in Christ, of which an infant is incapable, that is not found in Scripture - but could be rationalized if needed :)
Can we go back to Paul for a minute and try to figure that out as we keep adding things to the post without even agreeing to disagree;) 'Paul said in Romans 7 that he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, "sin revived and I died."' Would you agree with me that when the 'commandment came' is when Jesus appeared to him on the road and not really applicable to a childs 'point of awareness'? i guess that would be the starting point of our discussion. If so does that mean until the Holy Spirit (or Jesus specifically) revealed his error to him, that he was not to be held liable for his persecution of the Christians?
as far as the Calvinist/Arminian debate ending up going to rationalization, i don't necessarily believe that's true as you could say the same thing about creation/ evolution as we both live in the same world (that God created;)
my question was about your rationalization of 'the work of atonement actually satisfied the guilt of original sin, but without faith, actual sin is still applied' when you think about that doesn't what you said limit or step the power of Jesus blood, in that His blood is sufficient for 'original sin' but not sufficient to cover the sins an individual commits during his life time UNTIL he accepts Christ? sorry i opened another topic up before finishing the other ones we were discussing;) still glad you sent me the link to your blog? i think i'm the only one reading it the last couple of days though;)
1) Back to Paul - NO, I absolutely don't think the context of Romans 7 allows it to be referring to Jesus' appearing to him. If I understand you right, you're saying Jesus appearing to Paul was when "the commandment came?" The problem is that the context is the law - to which you become dead (vs. 4). Paul says the law is the knowledge of sin. Without the law, sin is dead. And he was alive without the law once. He always had the Jewish law which taught him what sin was. When he broke that law, he knew he was sinning. But he was alive without the law once - before he had the knowledge of sin... That's really how I understand that passage. I don't see his road to Damascus experience in this.
2) My 'rationalizing' does not limit the power of the blood of Jesus. You would agree with me that His blood's payment was sufficient for the sins of the whole world - that it is powerful enough to save everybody - but it didn't. That doesn't limit the power of it. Do you believe an unregenerate elect's sins have already been forgiven before they believe? Or, do you believe that when a person believes, or is born again (as Calvinist doctrine say comes first), that at that point in time the atonement is applied?
i understand that the context is the law, however the chapter speaks of before Christ and after Christ, not before you turn 12(or whatever the age is) between 12 and Christ and then after Christ. are you stating that Paul did not think he was doing the Lords work as a Pharisee when he was persecuting the church and obtained letters from the high priest to the synagogues in damascus in Acts 9?
or are you saying that Paul is speaking of when he was a child then at some point (stephens death?) he was deceived by sin (rom 7:11) and after that point was responsible for his sin?
OR is the reason i don't think i've gotten a clear answer on this subject because i have a very thick head?
as for your last question... if i could answer that last question inteligently (which word i just misspelled and kind of proves that i can't;)) i could also answer such questions as, which came first the chicken and the egg, how is Jesus fully God and fully Man at the same time, how could he be capable and incapable of sinning at the same time. how can God be sovereign and man have free will etc etc. as much as i like to think i know everything, it makes my head hurt;)
it was the chicken of course!
Here's how I take Romans 7. I'm only continuing on this point because you sound like you're actually trying to grasp what I think (that can be difficult to understand me often, I know!!)
vss. 1-6, Paul talks about how before a person is in Christ, he is bound by the law. Once he is saved (and the atonement gets applied to him:)), the law is not holding him any more. He is dead to the law, and the law is dead that was holding him.
vs. 7, Paul answers the argument that would arise from the previous 6 verses - "the law must be bad then, since all it did was bring sin..." He goes on to say, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Paul is saying that he did not know sin until he knew the law. He did not know that lust was a sin, until he knew that God's law said, Thou shalt not covet. When did he learn the commandment, Thou shalt not covet? It wasn't at his conversion, but rather when he was a child. Wouldn't you agree?
vs. 8, The sinful, natural man rears his ugly head, because when Paul learned that he shouldn't covet, his sinfulness caused him to do all manner of concupiscence (lust). Just like when you're told not to do something, all of a sudden you want to do it...
vs. 9, When in Paul's life was he alive without (apart from) the law? The same law that he has been talking about in vs. 7? The one that contained, Thou shalt not covet.
vss. 10-12, the law, which was ordained to be for good and for life, ended up being unto death, because of our sinful nature going against the law - it slew us. But it's not the law that was bad - that was good.
vs. 13, The law didn't make us dead, but sin, made us dead...
That's how I understand the first 13 verses.
Looking at the question marks in your comment, I answer:
Paul thought he was doing the Lord's work as a Pharisee, of course, but Paul also knew that in his life he lusted, even while trying to the Lord's work.
I hadn't spent much time on that word, "deceived" by sin, my thought is that he was deceived in thinking that sin was better for him than obedience to God's law. After he sinned with the knowledge of the law, he was responsible for his own sin.
It could be becuase you have a very thick head!!
And I would be disappointed if you only read this comment and missed my previous comment (re: the chicken!)
of course i am actually trying to grasp what you are saying... i want some knowledge and understanding out of all this... even if all i come out with is knowing the chicken came first;)
this is an excellent 'logical' e.g. logic based argument, i find the second to last paragraph on rationalization especially interesting... haha. anyways it's just a blog but instead of my typing it (although the old greek guys i wouldn't have known) i figured i'd just past the address and find out what you think.
http://anhonestdebate.com/2007/07/24/christian-epistimology-part-2-the-law-written-on-our-hearts/
and here are a couple of verses.
eccl 12:13 duty of man (not just christians) (keeping the d word out of things)
Rom 1:18-20 the invisible things are known by the things that are made so they are without excuse... i did a google on vs. 18 and the first link that popped up was a John Piper sermon... don't hold it against me;)
Dude, You're making fun of my use of the word "rational" and you are recommending this article because it is very "logical." They mean the same thing! I think the article's word used should have been more like "justify." When we make things right (whether they are right or not) we are justifying them. When we use reason, we are being "rational" or "logical."
Anyway, I agree that God has given man conscience, as I think that's the article's main point.
But, at the same time, an infant is incapable of telling a lie - before it can speak. It cannot grasp the concept of human life yet alone imagining to try to take another's - It does not even consider stealing...
have we gotten off topic???!!!
aw i wasn't making fun of you, just teasing... yeah i think we're off subject, i think it was the chicken that did it...
Post a Comment