The sacrifice of Christ gave much more than mere physical life. It lifted form humanity the condemnation of the second death, and gave every spiritual blessing and happiness that humanity has ever known. This deliverance from the fear of eternal death is the "justification unto life" that Christ has given to "all men," not merely offered to them. Having died every man's second death, Christ has secured for him the gift of salvation. This means that "all men" are born and live under a legal "verdict of acquittal" "in Christ." and are drawn by the Holy Spirit unless and until they choose finally to disbelieve and thus be lost. (But God does not force anyone; the sinner can spurn what Christ has already given him.)
I was reflecting upon the dispute that 1 John 2:2 is often used to argue that Jesus’ death actually takes away the sins of every single person ever and satisfies the wrath of God on all of mankind’s behalf. Consistency is the sign of a failed argument, and those who hold this view teach radically contradictory doctrines. Since most arguments use this verse without any exegesis, I will argue here based upon the unity of the New Testament’s distinctive doctrines.
There are several reasons for rejecting Universal Atonement by which men only go to hell for unbelief. It separates the different aspects of the work of Christ. In theology, Christians often distinguish between different doctrines that may only be distinguished in order that we may better understand the Faith. They are not to be separated artificially.
1) For instance, Justification is to be distinguished from Sanctification. Yet all believers must come under both truths. There is no Christian that possesses one without the other.
2) The doctrine of the non-Imputation of Sin is distinguished from the positive imputation of Righteousness. There are reasons for doing so theologically, but every believer must possess both. It is unbiblical to say an Unbeliever has been forgiven his sin debt while not receiving the imputation of righteousness. Romans chapter 4 speaks of both aspects belonging to the believer. Never once does Scripture teach otherwise.
3) The Passive and Active obedience of Christ become separated. 1 John 2:2 is used to show that Jesus actually takes away the sins of everyone including unbelievers. The only reason men go to hell (we are told) is unbelief. So Jesus’ work on the cross becomes a work that is totally divorced from His righteous life.
Why is Jesus’ righteous life not the possession of unbelievers, while His death is? If we take the idea of universal Substitutionary Atonement, why can we not say Jesus lived His life for every single person ever? The simple reason is that Scripture militates against such an idea. Romans 5:12 and following could not be any clearer on the Federal Headship of Adam and Christ with respect to those who are in union with them. The inconsistency here is glaring. If Jesus’ death actually took away the sins of every person ever, then why does His life not make every one righteous?
4) The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement becomes divorced from the High Priestly Office of Christ and His intercession on behalf of His Elect. Penal Substitutionary Atonement has an historic definition. This historic understanding declared by the Reformers was closely linked with Christ’s intercession. In Several places in Scripture we are told that Jesus prays for His people and offers Himself in their behalf. This is no hypothetical prayer. Jesus goes to the Father on the basis of His work. In other words, at the Cross-, Jesus actually secures His people by His death. He actually dies in their place and offers that sacrifice to the Father. Today, all believers may say “Jesus died for me” knowing that He bore their sins on the cross.
If we apply these works of Christ to unbelievers, is Jesus’ death not sufficient to satisfy the Father in their behalf? Does Jesus fail to avert the wrath of God? Does the Father pour His wrath against Jesus and the unbeliever?
5) Assuming Universal Atonement heavily relies upon an unproved idea that man has a free will. Often I am told that God must in Christ offer salvation to all men. I am ready to agree, but not because God must do so. I agree that all men are commanded to repent and believe simply because God sent His Son to do a work. Therefore it must be believed just because it is revealed God did something.
However, simply because Christ died on the Cross and it is historical and commanded by God to be believed does not mean Jesus efficaciously applies that work to every individual ever, but only His Elect. Immediately someone will say that is not fair. Jesus must efficaciously offer His work to everyone.
a) From the Calvinistic perspective, that is tantamount to saying that everyone must be saved before they may be rightly judged having rejected the free offer of the Gospel.
b) Grace must be radically redefined to mean something God must do. But if God must do something, how is this grace? For a gift to be free, it must be freely given. If God chooses not to efficaciously do something, why is He accountable for our sinful rejection of His offer? To blame God for not graciously and efficaciously freeing us from our sin is to blame God for our sin.
c) This is also a denial of Original Sin. Man is a sinner by nature. If God freely chooses to free a man from his sin, is God not able to do this perfectly in Christ. The error of semi-Pelagianism has returned. On a fundamental level, this view is no different from Rome’s. Man must cooperate with God’s grace to achieve salvation.
d) One web site states, “God does not deal with you on the basis of your goodness or your badness. He deals with you on the basis of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.” I must ask, “What about the man who has never heard of Christ?” Clearly men are still unbelievers for they reject God through the revelation God has given to all men through creation and their conscience. Far too many passages demonstrate that men are judged for their sin and their sins.
e) Is Unbelief a sin? Did Jesus die for it? If it is not a sin, then why do men go to hell for it?
Again, much more could be said. In conclusion we must as Christians distinguish between doctrines, but not divorce them from one another. Christ’s person and His work are at stake. Will we see salvation as being man-centered or will we see the majesty of God in the face of Christ and his work.
Lord willing, in my next post I will demonstrate that 1 John 2:2 does not teach Universal Atonement not only in its immediate scope but also in the broader scope of John’s writings and the New Testament itself.
4 comments:
"...an unproved idea that man has a free will."
Leaving atonement aside for a moment, it seems to me that the notion that man lacks free will is by far the less supportable position, if for no other reason than that God, by His own command requires our love: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and spirit."
Imagine, Howie, that your wife discovered one morning that you had been slipping a drug into her food since you had met, and that her apparent love for you had always been nothing more than blunt force compulsion by the drug. Would she be happy to know this or would she demand that you release her from mindless thralldom? Would either of you truly call her compelled devotion "love?"
Love without free will is no more possible than music without sound to carry it. Love is a song sung only by the free will.
Jesus said if you love him, if you obey his comands, he calls you his friend: no longer a servant (or a slave) but a friend.
" ...as Christians distinguish between doctrines, but not divorce them from one another. Christ’s person and His work are at stake. Will we see salvation as being man-centered or will we see the majesty of God in the face of Christ and his work."
I see no conflict between God's choosing to save man in part by each man's own response to his saving love and the majesty of God in the face of Christ and his work. Rather it is all the more to his Glory, that he calls us to have His attitude, to humble ourselves and submit even unto death that we might have life. There is no conflict in willfully submitting to God and aknowledging that it is He who ultimately works in us. When we obey God of our own free will, we discover that then indeed it was God's will at work all along. Perhaps in that sense there is no "free will" as all that is done apart from God shall perish, but all done in Him shall last.
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."
--Phil 2:5-13
TOA,
“Leaving atonement aside for a moment, it seems to me that the notion that man lacks free will is by far the less supportable position, if for no other reason than that God, by His own command requires our love: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and spirit."”
Question: Can the unregenerate heart, mind and spirit love God?
Heart & Spirit
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
Mind
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
First of all, WB TOA.
Carefully read Paul's response.
"I see no conflict between God's choosing to save man in part by each man's own response to his saving love and the majesty of God in the face of Christ and his work."
Of course you don't. Because you see salvation as a cooperation between man and God. This denies Original Sin, the Federal representation of Adam for his race and the same for Christ and the humanity He forms.
"free will is by far the less supportable position, if for no other reason than that God, by His own command requires our love: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind and spirit."
Again, this vitiates against Paul's entire argument. Righteousness is apart from the Law since the natural man is unable to keep it in any way.
Your position rings of Pelagianism. If God commands it, I must be able to do it. This includes believing the Gospel itself. We believe because of an external power creates faith through the external preaching of the Gospel. (You may read the Confessions for that argument as well. It is not the Word of God from the law but Gospel.)
Based upon an American understanding of Love you say, "Would either of you truly call her compelled devotion "love?""
Again, the analogy has no comprehension of Reformed Theology. It has no idea of the Biblical categories of man's problem.
Man does not need a choice to be offered to him. Man needs resurrection into the Life of Christ. So that Christ's life is my righteousness. His death is my death. His resurrection is my resurrection. Ect.... This is a union of God's people with Christ brought into effect through faith.
Therefore faith alone saves and is a part of the gift of salvation. It is procured by Christ and secured to His people through His sacrifice and applied by the Holy Spirit.
God Bless
Post a Comment