Answer:
Limited
Atonement (or the doctrine which some have perhaps better referred to as
Particular Redemption) has long been debated on various levels within the
church. The question you have
asked is a GREAT one; not only because there is significant historical value
in determining the answer, but even more importantly, is the clarity that
such an historical study can provide as to the distinction between the
opposing systems of doctrine and the way that God has used such debate in
history and providence to demonstrate the importance of why one view of
soteriology ought to be accepted and preferred over the other.
Regarding
the ORIGIN of the doctrine of Limited Atonement (as well as the other
doctrines contained in TULIP), you are right in stating that they did not
begin with either John Calvin or the Synod of Dordt; though both have played
a significant role in the debate and in proclaiming and defending the
doctrine itself.
History
records for us that the followers of James Arminius, after his death, drew
up five articles of faith based on his teaching and presented them to the
State of Holland in the form of a Remonstrance (protest), whereby they stood
in opposition to the “Calvinistic” doctrines of grace put forth in the
Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism, documents which
served as official standards of the Church of Holland.
Two points are noteworthy. First,
the doctrine of Limited Atonement (along with the other Reformed doctrines
found in TULIP) were ALREADY present in the Belgic Confession and the
Heidelberg Catechism; therefore these doctrines did not find their origin in
the Synod of Dordt, though they unmistakably were brought into clear focus
and ecclesiastically affirmed at the Synod and in the actions taken by the
Synod. Secondly, it is
important to note that the Synod not only unanimously rejected the views
represented by the protesters as not being in keeping with the teaching of
Scripture (heretical), but deemed it wise and useful to put forth a positive
statement concerning the (reformed) doctrines of salvation that had been
called into question. From this
declaration arose what has come to be known as the Five Points of Calvinism
(TULIP). Dr. Al Freundt, former
pastor of Brandon Presbyterian Church and professor of Church History at
Reformed Theological Seminary put it best when he said
“technically, these are not the Five Points of Calvinism, but the
Five Disputed Points of Arminianism”, for Calvinism itself is much greater
than these five points…these five points are simply doctrines that the
supporters of James Arminius objected to.
Further
investigation into church history reveals that the doctrine of Limited
Atonement did not even begin with the Belgic Confession of Faith and
Heidelberg Catechism, but can find its roots as early as the third, fourth,
and fifth centuries as the church refuted the heresies of Pelagianism and
Semi-Pelagianism through such men as Augustine. In opposition to Pelagius, who denied the corruption of
the human nature by sin such that man had the ability to choose God through
his free will as well as to perfectly keep the law in his own power;
Augustine argued that man’s fall had deemed him unable on his own to keep
the law and please God, and so was dependent upon the grace of God for the
faith and righteousness needed for salvation and a restored relationship
with God. However, the elements
of the doctrine of Limited Atonement did not even begin with men such as
Augustine. Such teachings are
found (supported and/or defended) in
the writings of the Apostles, in the teaching of Jesus, in God’s selection
and blessing of Israel, which Moses writes was not because of their
righteousness (actual or foreseen) … for they were “a stiff necked
people” (Gen 9:6; See also John 1:12-13; Rom 9:11-13; ); and the teaching
is even found in the eternal will of God which preceded the creation of the
world (Eph 1:4-6). Therefore, chronologically, the doctrine existed before time
began, and the origin of the doctrine is found in God himself, who has
communicated such doctrine such that the basis for the origin for the
believer is found in the revelation, inspiration and authority of Scripture
itself.
As
to the question of LIMITED ATONEMENT, some purpose that Christ died to make
salvation possible for all (100% of humanity) but did not actually secure
salvation for (or “save”) any of them.
The Reformed view on the other hand states that Christ suffered and
died for the elect only, in order to fully secure (actually save) all those
he not only legally represented but actually stood in the place for, both in
keeping the law and laying down his life.
The Reformed or Calvinistic view sees Christ as a covenant and
federal representative of the elect only, such that in the same way that
Adam federally represented all humanity in the covenant of works and brought
about death for all humanity found in him -
which he did through original sin; so Christ represents all the elect
in the covenant of grace and secures eternal life through perfect obedience
for all those found in him (Rom 5:12-21).
The question is: what does Scripture teach?
In Matthew 1:21 the angel of the Lord instructs Joseph to take Mary
home as his wife, because “She will give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people
from their sins.” Note – it
does not say he will simply make possible salvation for everyone, but that
he will actually save those who belong to him, … that they were given to
him by the Father ( Jn 17:2; 6). In
1 Tim 1:15, we read “Here is
a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”
Again, in Heb 9:15 we find “For this reason Christ is the mediator
of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised
eternal inheritance – now that he has died as a ransom to set them
free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” As Louis Berkhof puts it, “the Bible indicates that Christ
laid down His life for His people, for his sheep (John 10:11,
15, for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25-27), or for the Elect (Rom
8:32-35). If the Bible
sometimes says that Christ died for the world (Jn 1:29; 1 Jn 2:2;
4:14), or for all (1 Tim 2:6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9), this evidently
means that He died for people of all nations of the world, or (in
some cases) for all kinds or classes of people.”
In fact, in examining the context of each passage of Scripture that
might at first appear to suggest a sacrifice being made for 100% of mankind,
one can quickly see that these passages cannot mean that and at the same
time agree with the details of the verses surrounding them.
Hence the question arises as to WHO (which side of the argument) is
really “LIMITING” the atonement. The
truth is … WE can’t limit the atonement anyway, even if we wanted to,
because God applies the atonement to those whom he will.
But at the same time, there are those who accuse Calvinist of
“limiting” the atonement. Calvinist
agree with the infinite power of the atonement but believe Scripture tells
us that Christ died only for a certain number of individuals, whose names
are already written in the Book of Life.
Here, the POWER of the atonement is NOT LIMITED in that Christ’s
atonement FULLY saves ALL those who Christ died for.
Neither is the scope or extent of the atonement limited, it is only
applied to particular individuals that God describes in Scripture (hence the
name particular atonement) . On the other hand, Arminians, who claim that
Christ died for all (meaning 100 % of all humanity), though they claim not
to limit atonement, though they suggest the atonement is provided for all
people, they clearly deny the power of the atonement because in their view
Christ’s atonement did not secure salvation (or actually save) anyone, but
only made it possible for those who in their own power choose God.
This latter view results in an imperfect Godhead, in that the Father
sent the Son that all mankind might be saved and the son came and died to
save all mankind, but the Holy Spirit does not apply the merit of salvation
to those for whom Christ died (hence God is unjust since he required the
penalty of Christ, but does not extend the forgiveness and innocence to the
people). On the other hand, the Calvinist position puts forth perfect
inter-trinitarian communication and works, whereas God the Father sends the
Son in view of the salvation of the elect, the Son represents and gives his
life for the elect securing their salvation, and the Holy Spirit applies
that salvation (thru the works of calling, conviction, regeneration,
justification, sanctification, and glorification, etc.) to the elect.
As
to the issue of whether a person can consistently be a four point Calvinist,
I refer you to David Steele & Curtis Thomas’ excellent work (The Five
Points of Calvinism: Defined,
Defended, Documented by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.) which
states “For the five points, though separately stated, are really
inseparable. They hang
together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in
the sense in which the Synod meant them.
For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in
the field of soteriology: the
point that God saves sinners.” (1 Tim 1:15)
In the same way that the Ten Commandments form a whole, such that one
commandment cannot be broken without breaking the law itself (James 2:20);
the Five Points of Calvinism (Tulip) form a whole such that when understood
in light of the exclusive glory and power and responsibility they assign and
claim to God when it comes to his sovereignty over and provision for man’s
salvation, including the glory that completely and exclusively belongs to God
alone as the sole author and provider of salvation as it is offered to
man thru the gospel of Jesus Christ; one cannot dismiss or reject any of the
five without also departing from the nucleus and thereby severely damaging
or denying the other members as well.
One
can go to many works, in which the common arguments both for and against
Limited Atonement can be found. Let me refer you to a few verses that are not commonly used,
but are powerfully persuasive even to the point of undeniable certainty when
it comes to the truth of this doctrine.
First, Rom 8:6-8 states: “The
mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life
and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God.
It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”
Here, the unbeliever (among sinners) is described as both
incompatible as well as incapable of choosing God and that of doing that
which is pleasing before him (even choosing him).
Secondly, Scripture tells us that not only faith (Eph 2:8-9) but
repentance as well is a gift from God.
In Acts 5:31 we read “God exalted him to his own right hand as
Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of
sins to Israel.” In Acts
11:18 we find “When they heard this, they had no further objections and
praised God, saying, ‘so then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance
unto life.” If man cannot
repent and exercise faith apart from God giving them to him, and he does not
give them to all, then clearly the atonement is limited and redemption is
particular.
Finally,
one reason many, even within the church, have trouble embracing the teaching
of Limited Atonement (along with the other four points) is that this is a
point where man must completely deny himself and give all (100%) of the
glory to God alone, which is difficult for even the best of believers to do,
not only in doctrine, but also in duty.
However, when one comes to embrace such a position, it will transform
the whole of his life, and will affect not only how he views such things as
the kingdom, evangelism, sanctification, etc.; but how he views and responds
to the one to whom all glory and honor and thanksgiving and worship is to be
given.
|
