Following the Scriptures, we believe that the practice of ordination is a Biblical one. Men should not simply take up these offices on their own, but they should be elected, examined, and installed. We also believe that there are only two offices in the Church, that of elder and deacon. Our Church Order states clearly, following the Bible (2 Tim. 2:9-15): "No one who holds office in the Church ought to usurp authority therein, or receive any official titles of spiritual preeminence, except such as are employed in the Scriptures."
The steps for the ordination or ruling order or deacon being ordained are these:
1. They are nominated to the office by a member of the congregation.
2. They undergo instruction in the qualifications and duties of the office.
3. They are examined by the Session as to their fitness for office.
4. They are voted on by the congregation.
5. If the congregation elects them, then they proceed to ordination.
6. At the ordination, the minister shall briefly state the duties of the office.
7. Then, the minister shall ask the candidate for the office to affirm their adherence to the Scriptures and the Standards of the Church, their willingness to take up the office, subject himself to the brethren, and to strive for the peace, purity, and unity of the Church.
8. Then, the congregation will affirm their readiness to accept this person.
9. The ceremony is closed with prayer and laying on of hands.
10. Then, the other officers may extend the right hand of fellowship.
Now, watch this video from Redeemer PCA in NYC.
(0:03) Male and female deacons installed together
(0:13) Deb, elected a female deacon, is used to represent further deacons being installed later that morning. Pastor states: "Deb is assuming the Diaconal Role this morning."
(0:20) Nominated by members of Redeemer just as other elders and deacons
(0:28) Extensive Training Process
(0:35) Interviewed by other officers of the Church
(0:41) Elected by vote of congregation
(1:17) Deaconess for Deb is an extraordinary calling
(1:34) She is charged
(4:26) Six Ordination Questions are asked to the woman
(5:09) The Pastor clearly uses the word 'ordination' in regard to what is going on
(6:02) The members of Redeemer promise and covenant to yield obedience to her
I would add that they do close in prayer, though we do not know if they laid hands on her and extended her the right hand of fellowship. This is clearly an ordination of a woman to an ecclesiastical office contrary to the Book of Church Order and Scripture. This is what is going on in the PCA. Be aware.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What is the Church? Hodge's Answer
Though Charles Hodge did not write on the doctrine of the Church in his Systematic Theology, he did write on the subject elsewhere, in his book Church Polity. This work by Hodge provides an excellent explanation of the Protestant doctrine of the Church. One may summarize his view of the Church this way: “Every man united to Christ by a living faith [is] a member of his body and an heir of his salvation, no matter what his external ecclesiastical relations might be, and despite of all that pope, prelate, or presbyter, might say or do (All citations from Church Polity, 137).” Thus, the Church consists of all those who are united by the Holy Spirit through faith to Christ. When someone believes in Christ, he is a member of the church regardless of his external circumstances. In the most ultimate sense, he is and ever will be a member of Christ and the Church. On the contrary, “If a man is not justified, sanctified, and consecrated to God, he is not a saint, and therefore does not belong to the Church, which is the communion of saints"(6). Someone who is not a true believer, in spite of their profession, is not really a part of the Church. We may regard them as such by a judgment of charity. They may enjoy certain blessings associated with the Church, but they are not truly members of Christ.
Since the Church is the union of all those who are united to Christ by faith, and since such believers are always united to Christ, then external union and communion is an important but secondary matter in defining the Church. As Hodge states, “The saints may exist, they may have communion, the Church may continue under any external organization, or without any visible organization whatever"(6). Consequently, the Church is not dependent on any external organization. Indeed, we can observe that the external Church is often in a rather sad condition. It often does not show forth the unity that exists among all those who are united to Christ. It often teaches error and does not confess the true faith.
Since the external Church is not necessary either for the existence for the Church or salvation, then men can be saved even where the external organization of the Church does not exist. Hodge states this plainly when he says, “If…the whole visible Church should apostatize or be dispersed by persecution, the door of heaven would be as wide open as ever. Wherever Christ is known, men may obey and love him, without the intervention of a priest"(76). If someone believes in Christ and obeys Him, then there is nothing that the external Church can do to sever him from Christ. If someone does not believe in Christ and disobeys Him, then there is nothing that the external Church can do to unite him to Christ.
This point is central in Hodge’s mind and comes out in all his thinking. The external church organization may be necessary for the bene esse of the Church, but we can never say that it is necessary for the esse of the Church. Much of Hodge’s work contains a foil in the Anglico-Catholic Pusey. The Anglo-Catholics agree substantially with Rome that the invisible and visible Church on earth is identical with the external organization of the Church. Those who are outside of it are not saved. Those who are inside are saved. Outside of the Church (meaning the visible organization), there is no salvation. As Hodge points out, we can agree that “outside of the Church there is no salvation,” but we give it a different sense. The Puseyites, as he calls them, believe that the Church is identical with the visible, external organization. Hodge says that Protestants can affirm that the statement is true because the invisible Church is made up of all those who believe in Christ. To say that there is no salvation outside of the Church is to say nothing more or nothing less than that there is no salvation outside of faith in Christ and union with Him by the Holy Spirit.
Hodge believes that the Anglo-Catholic/Roman identification of the Church with the external organization leads to disaster, as it did at the time preceding the Reformation. On the one hand, they are forced to admit that “If a whole nation of Pagans or Mohammedans should submit to these external conditions, they would be true members of the Church, though ignorant of its doctrines, though destitute of faith, and sunk in moral corruption"(20). Their principles prohibit them from recognizing that that there are members in the Church who do not believe the Gospel and, therefore, are no true part of the Church. In fact, as Hodge points out, they do not, when pressed, carry out their principles to the logical conclusion. They do accept that someone may be a member of the external Church and yet not be a member in the deepest sense, and thus, they too are obliged to admit that the Church cannot be identified head for head with every member of the Church, but the doctrine that is communicated is that they believe that the number of Christians on earth coincides exactly with the rolls of the Church. This tends to make communion with the visible Church more important than communion with Christ, and it tends to make men think that all that is necessary for salvation is a good relation to the visible Church. As a result, there is a great deal of antinomianism in these “ritualist” churches. As Hodge says, criminals the world over belong to such ritualistic churches.
What then are we to do with those members of the Church who are not really changed in heart and are not true believers? The answer is simply that they are to be regarded as members of the Church based on their profession and their walk. Hodge does not believe that we can look on the heart, but he counters that our inability to look on the heart does not change their actual status. As he says of the Church of Corinth,
Nevertheless, they are to be called believers. They are to be regarded as believers until their profession indicates otherwise. There is thus a visible and invisible aspect of the Church. The visible Church consists of all those who profess the true religion and their children. The invisible Church consists of all those who actually believe in Christ.
Since the Church is the union of all those who are united to Christ by faith, and since such believers are always united to Christ, then external union and communion is an important but secondary matter in defining the Church. As Hodge states, “The saints may exist, they may have communion, the Church may continue under any external organization, or without any visible organization whatever"(6). Consequently, the Church is not dependent on any external organization. Indeed, we can observe that the external Church is often in a rather sad condition. It often does not show forth the unity that exists among all those who are united to Christ. It often teaches error and does not confess the true faith.
Since the external Church is not necessary either for the existence for the Church or salvation, then men can be saved even where the external organization of the Church does not exist. Hodge states this plainly when he says, “If…the whole visible Church should apostatize or be dispersed by persecution, the door of heaven would be as wide open as ever. Wherever Christ is known, men may obey and love him, without the intervention of a priest"(76). If someone believes in Christ and obeys Him, then there is nothing that the external Church can do to sever him from Christ. If someone does not believe in Christ and disobeys Him, then there is nothing that the external Church can do to unite him to Christ.
This point is central in Hodge’s mind and comes out in all his thinking. The external church organization may be necessary for the bene esse of the Church, but we can never say that it is necessary for the esse of the Church. Much of Hodge’s work contains a foil in the Anglico-Catholic Pusey. The Anglo-Catholics agree substantially with Rome that the invisible and visible Church on earth is identical with the external organization of the Church. Those who are outside of it are not saved. Those who are inside are saved. Outside of the Church (meaning the visible organization), there is no salvation. As Hodge points out, we can agree that “outside of the Church there is no salvation,” but we give it a different sense. The Puseyites, as he calls them, believe that the Church is identical with the visible, external organization. Hodge says that Protestants can affirm that the statement is true because the invisible Church is made up of all those who believe in Christ. To say that there is no salvation outside of the Church is to say nothing more or nothing less than that there is no salvation outside of faith in Christ and union with Him by the Holy Spirit.
Hodge believes that the Anglo-Catholic/Roman identification of the Church with the external organization leads to disaster, as it did at the time preceding the Reformation. On the one hand, they are forced to admit that “If a whole nation of Pagans or Mohammedans should submit to these external conditions, they would be true members of the Church, though ignorant of its doctrines, though destitute of faith, and sunk in moral corruption"(20). Their principles prohibit them from recognizing that that there are members in the Church who do not believe the Gospel and, therefore, are no true part of the Church. In fact, as Hodge points out, they do not, when pressed, carry out their principles to the logical conclusion. They do accept that someone may be a member of the external Church and yet not be a member in the deepest sense, and thus, they too are obliged to admit that the Church cannot be identified head for head with every member of the Church, but the doctrine that is communicated is that they believe that the number of Christians on earth coincides exactly with the rolls of the Church. This tends to make communion with the visible Church more important than communion with Christ, and it tends to make men think that all that is necessary for salvation is a good relation to the visible Church. As a result, there is a great deal of antinomianism in these “ritualist” churches. As Hodge says, criminals the world over belong to such ritualistic churches.
What then are we to do with those members of the Church who are not really changed in heart and are not true believers? The answer is simply that they are to be regarded as members of the Church based on their profession and their walk. Hodge does not believe that we can look on the heart, but he counters that our inability to look on the heart does not change their actual status. As he says of the Church of Corinth,
The fact is admitted, that all the professors of the true religion in Corinth, without reference to their character, are called the church of Corinth…Their being called believers does not prove that they were all believers; neither does their being called the Church prove that they were all members of the Church (12).
Nevertheless, they are to be called believers. They are to be regarded as believers until their profession indicates otherwise. There is thus a visible and invisible aspect of the Church. The visible Church consists of all those who profess the true religion and their children. The invisible Church consists of all those who actually believe in Christ.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
What's Right with the Institutional Church
There is much hostility to the idea of the "institutional" Church today. Many do not believe that it is authentic, that it promotes formalism, that it promotes bureaucracy over true community, etc.
Are there problems with institutional Churches? Of course. Every sort of organization has problems. However, do the problems outweigh the benefits? I do not believe so. Let me tell you why I think that the institutional Church is a good idea.
Of course, I could argue this same point directly from the Bible, but I want to just consider the institutional Church in terms of the nature of a society. Let's suppose that we had no specific instructions on organization and just see what would happen if Christians tried to get together.
First, the foundation of a Christian society is love. We should get together with other Christians because we love them. If you agree with that, then let me ask you this question. Should you get together with Christians just in your age group or with those for whom you have a natural affection? Certainly not. That seems to be completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity. We should seek to join together with as many Christians as we can of all ages and backgrounds.
So, let's suppose also that Christians in an area want to meet together. What will they do when they meet together? They are going to worship and fellowship.
Now, who decides what the specifics will be, that is, when they will meet, in what order they will do things, how many times they will meet, etc.? In all societies, these decisions will devolve on a certain group or person. That's why nearly every type of society has officers in order to, at the very least, organize what the society will do.
So, you have an organization with some sort of officers (even if non-formal) with various meeting times doing certain things. What happens, then, if someone in your group says they believe that Buddha is just as good as Jesus and wants to continue to be part of the group. Should you allow that? Should you set some parameters as to what you do believe and do not? You may say, "the Bible," but suppose that this person says that this is consistent with the Bible. Then, you are going to have to make a statement about what you believe. So, a confession of some sort is inevitable. You may think that you are not starting out with one but eventually you will have one, even if it is merely understood and not written down. And that's exactly how things developed in the early Church.
Now, let's also say that someone is doing something that brings a scandal on your group. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to rebuke this person? What if he doesn't listen? Who will take this matter up? Once you believe that something must be done about scandals, then you are going to have to come up with some sort of method of discipline.
After all this, you realize that you need leaders to carry out all these things. Further, you need to have some specific people who focus on studying the Bible. Who will be the leaders? Who decides? You will have to come up with a method for choosing and installing leaders.
At this point, you realize that you have to figure out who really belongs to the group. At first, you just said that you would have whoever was there be a part of the group. But, then, when your leaders confronted someone, they simply said that they had no authority over them. In a sense they were right. In a voluntary society, authority cannot be imposed. It must be given. So, you realize that you have to have a membership roll and membership vows.
By this time, your group is looking very much like an institutional Church. You realize that others have done the same thing. You start to talk to them and learn from them. You have also seen that there are many things your group can't figure out on its own. You decide to meet regularly with other Churches to talk to one another about how you should do things. Besides, you ought to love all Christians and not only the ones in your own local Church, so it seems consistent with Christianity to get together as various Churches.
Then, you have another problem. One of the Churches says that the Holy Spirit conveys salvation in water baptism. You know that this is wrong, but you are in the same association together discussing how to run your Churches together. You decide that this Church should not be a part of the association unless they change their views. Others agree. Now, you have to set up a method for disciplining over an entire region.
Upon further reflection, you realize that this Church once believed that baptism confirmed salvation to true believers but did not give it. You wonder what would happen if your leaders changed their view to this one. What could you do about it? You think, maybe we should have a way of keeping others accountable. So, you set up a system that keeps other Churches accountable.
To bring this to a close, you see that the institutional Church is highly necessary if our goal is for Christians to come together. If people are going to come together, they must have an organization of some sort. An institution is really just an organization plus time. Institutions are inevitable in human society. If Christians are called to love one another, then they will inevitably form institutions.
So, why not simply form your own organization based on what you think the Scripture says? At times, like during the Reformation, this may be necessary. However, even in the Reformation, the Reformers sought to look to the best of the past in order to learn how to put together their institutions. Theoretically, you may be able to build a better institution, but knowing you (whoever you are), probably not. The likelihood is that if you start from scratch, you will still build an institution. It will just be a very bad one.
Are there problems with institutional Churches? Of course. Every sort of organization has problems. However, do the problems outweigh the benefits? I do not believe so. Let me tell you why I think that the institutional Church is a good idea.
Of course, I could argue this same point directly from the Bible, but I want to just consider the institutional Church in terms of the nature of a society. Let's suppose that we had no specific instructions on organization and just see what would happen if Christians tried to get together.
First, the foundation of a Christian society is love. We should get together with other Christians because we love them. If you agree with that, then let me ask you this question. Should you get together with Christians just in your age group or with those for whom you have a natural affection? Certainly not. That seems to be completely contrary to the spirit of Christianity. We should seek to join together with as many Christians as we can of all ages and backgrounds.
So, let's suppose also that Christians in an area want to meet together. What will they do when they meet together? They are going to worship and fellowship.
Now, who decides what the specifics will be, that is, when they will meet, in what order they will do things, how many times they will meet, etc.? In all societies, these decisions will devolve on a certain group or person. That's why nearly every type of society has officers in order to, at the very least, organize what the society will do.
So, you have an organization with some sort of officers (even if non-formal) with various meeting times doing certain things. What happens, then, if someone in your group says they believe that Buddha is just as good as Jesus and wants to continue to be part of the group. Should you allow that? Should you set some parameters as to what you do believe and do not? You may say, "the Bible," but suppose that this person says that this is consistent with the Bible. Then, you are going to have to make a statement about what you believe. So, a confession of some sort is inevitable. You may think that you are not starting out with one but eventually you will have one, even if it is merely understood and not written down. And that's exactly how things developed in the early Church.
Now, let's also say that someone is doing something that brings a scandal on your group. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to rebuke this person? What if he doesn't listen? Who will take this matter up? Once you believe that something must be done about scandals, then you are going to have to come up with some sort of method of discipline.
After all this, you realize that you need leaders to carry out all these things. Further, you need to have some specific people who focus on studying the Bible. Who will be the leaders? Who decides? You will have to come up with a method for choosing and installing leaders.
At this point, you realize that you have to figure out who really belongs to the group. At first, you just said that you would have whoever was there be a part of the group. But, then, when your leaders confronted someone, they simply said that they had no authority over them. In a sense they were right. In a voluntary society, authority cannot be imposed. It must be given. So, you realize that you have to have a membership roll and membership vows.
By this time, your group is looking very much like an institutional Church. You realize that others have done the same thing. You start to talk to them and learn from them. You have also seen that there are many things your group can't figure out on its own. You decide to meet regularly with other Churches to talk to one another about how you should do things. Besides, you ought to love all Christians and not only the ones in your own local Church, so it seems consistent with Christianity to get together as various Churches.
Then, you have another problem. One of the Churches says that the Holy Spirit conveys salvation in water baptism. You know that this is wrong, but you are in the same association together discussing how to run your Churches together. You decide that this Church should not be a part of the association unless they change their views. Others agree. Now, you have to set up a method for disciplining over an entire region.
Upon further reflection, you realize that this Church once believed that baptism confirmed salvation to true believers but did not give it. You wonder what would happen if your leaders changed their view to this one. What could you do about it? You think, maybe we should have a way of keeping others accountable. So, you set up a system that keeps other Churches accountable.
To bring this to a close, you see that the institutional Church is highly necessary if our goal is for Christians to come together. If people are going to come together, they must have an organization of some sort. An institution is really just an organization plus time. Institutions are inevitable in human society. If Christians are called to love one another, then they will inevitably form institutions.
So, why not simply form your own organization based on what you think the Scripture says? At times, like during the Reformation, this may be necessary. However, even in the Reformation, the Reformers sought to look to the best of the past in order to learn how to put together their institutions. Theoretically, you may be able to build a better institution, but knowing you (whoever you are), probably not. The likelihood is that if you start from scratch, you will still build an institution. It will just be a very bad one.
Monday, November 02, 2009
When Arminianism Wasn't Popular
In spite of the fact that Calvinism is considered by some as one of the most important movements in our time, those who hold to this position usually feel like our view is extremely unpopular. The “Church” is dominated by Arminianism and outright Pelagianism. The idea that God actual determines everything that comes to pass is generally considered to be abhorrent in the Church today.
However, there was a time when Arminianism was not popular. The mainline denominations rejected it and held fast to the true, Biblical faith. That time was the 17th century. Now, of course, every time has its weaknesses, but the Reformed Churches generally opposed the idea that man’s free will could procure for him salvation.
In 1602, Jacob Arminius was appointed to be a professor at Leiden, the leading university of the Netherlands. His semi-Pelagian teachings quickly came under fire by many, including his colleague Franciscus Gomarus.
Arminius died in 1609, but his views were adopted by many who put together a Remonstrance requesting that the States General (the Dutch Parliament) for toleration of their views. Consequently, they became known as “the Remonstrants” in the Netherlands but generally “Arminians” elsewhere.
One aspect of the Arminians’ teaching was that they held that the State had authority over the Church. For this reason, their teaching was popular with the States party in the Netherlands. The prime minister was Johann Oldenbarnevelt, and he insured that the Remonstrants would be tolerated and that no national synod would be held to deal with the matter.
Of course, as usual, the Remonstrants insisted that their views were in line with the Confession. As Philip Benedict notes:
They confessed to hold to these confessions, but they wanted to change them. This has been a common strategy throughout history.
In spite of the support of Oldenbarnevelt, the ministers were able to call a national synod to deal with the matter with the help of the Prince or Statdholder, Maurice. That assembly met in 1618 in the city of Dordrecht to consider the matter.
When the Synod was held, Benedict says, “[The Remonstrants] mounted so many procedural objections that they were finally sent away and their party’s views examined on the basis of its printed works” (Benedict, 311).
In the end, the Remonstrants’ doctrine was condemned. We should note that this was not merely the work of some Dutch ministers. There were eight voting colleges composed of British, Swiss, and German delegates along with the eleven voting colleges from the nine provincial synods of the Netherlands. They joined together in condemning the doctrines of the Remonstrants in no uncertain terms.
The Stadtholder, Maurice, exiled many of the Remonstrants. However, with the ascension of the politic John Frederick to the Stadtholderate, they returned and founded a seminary in Amsterdam. The amazing thing is that they never really gained traction. Less than one percent of the population joined them in a day when most attended Church (Ibid., 313). Most of their Churches had around 100 members. Both of the major parties in the Reformed Church, Voetians and Cocceians, adamantly opposed its teachings. Even when tolerated, the Remonstrant Church did not do well.
The Swiss, German, and Scottish Churches never formally adopted the Canons. However, throughout the seventeenth century, these Churches thought of the Synod with the highest respect. The Scots generally called it “the sacred Synod of Dort.”
In France, it was different. In Sedan, in the northeast part of France, near the Netherlands, there were disagreements over the Arminian doctrine. However, in 1623, the national synod of France adopted more or less the canons of Dort. This was the end of the controversy. Another “mainline” denomination had condemned Arminianism.
It was certainly a different time.
However, there was a time when Arminianism was not popular. The mainline denominations rejected it and held fast to the true, Biblical faith. That time was the 17th century. Now, of course, every time has its weaknesses, but the Reformed Churches generally opposed the idea that man’s free will could procure for him salvation.
In 1602, Jacob Arminius was appointed to be a professor at Leiden, the leading university of the Netherlands. His semi-Pelagian teachings quickly came under fire by many, including his colleague Franciscus Gomarus.
Arminius died in 1609, but his views were adopted by many who put together a Remonstrance requesting that the States General (the Dutch Parliament) for toleration of their views. Consequently, they became known as “the Remonstrants” in the Netherlands but generally “Arminians” elsewhere.
One aspect of the Arminians’ teaching was that they held that the State had authority over the Church. For this reason, their teaching was popular with the States party in the Netherlands. The prime minister was Johann Oldenbarnevelt, and he insured that the Remonstrants would be tolerated and that no national synod would be held to deal with the matter.
Of course, as usual, the Remonstrants insisted that their views were in line with the Confession. As Philip Benedict notes:
Even though Arminius was convinced that his doctrines stood in accord with the fundamental confessional documents of the Dutch church, the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism, he and his supporters insisted that these were time-bound materials whose reconsideration should be one of the items on the agenda of any national synod (Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, 306).
They confessed to hold to these confessions, but they wanted to change them. This has been a common strategy throughout history.
In spite of the support of Oldenbarnevelt, the ministers were able to call a national synod to deal with the matter with the help of the Prince or Statdholder, Maurice. That assembly met in 1618 in the city of Dordrecht to consider the matter.
When the Synod was held, Benedict says, “[The Remonstrants] mounted so many procedural objections that they were finally sent away and their party’s views examined on the basis of its printed works” (Benedict, 311).
In the end, the Remonstrants’ doctrine was condemned. We should note that this was not merely the work of some Dutch ministers. There were eight voting colleges composed of British, Swiss, and German delegates along with the eleven voting colleges from the nine provincial synods of the Netherlands. They joined together in condemning the doctrines of the Remonstrants in no uncertain terms.
The Stadtholder, Maurice, exiled many of the Remonstrants. However, with the ascension of the politic John Frederick to the Stadtholderate, they returned and founded a seminary in Amsterdam. The amazing thing is that they never really gained traction. Less than one percent of the population joined them in a day when most attended Church (Ibid., 313). Most of their Churches had around 100 members. Both of the major parties in the Reformed Church, Voetians and Cocceians, adamantly opposed its teachings. Even when tolerated, the Remonstrant Church did not do well.
The Swiss, German, and Scottish Churches never formally adopted the Canons. However, throughout the seventeenth century, these Churches thought of the Synod with the highest respect. The Scots generally called it “the sacred Synod of Dort.”
In France, it was different. In Sedan, in the northeast part of France, near the Netherlands, there were disagreements over the Arminian doctrine. However, in 1623, the national synod of France adopted more or less the canons of Dort. This was the end of the controversy. Another “mainline” denomination had condemned Arminianism.
It was certainly a different time.
Saving Time on Google Books
I no longer have to work on my Google Reformed Theology Bibliography. People with more time and resources are doing it here. I will add this to my sidebar.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Common Operations of the Spirit
Over the past couple of years, the phrase "common operations of the Spirit" has been debated and discussed within American Presbyterianism. It is found in Chapter 10 in the Westminster Confession of Faith, our confession, and elsewhere in the Westminster Standards. Some have even made the preposterous claim that these common operations include union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, new life, adoption, and other saving benefits. I have heard several people claim that this is a mysterious statement and that it is unclear what it means.
Actually, this phrase has been commonly used and defined throughout the history of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, and there is agreement on its meaning. Remember that this phrase first appears in the chapter in the Westminster Confession on effectual calling. This statement is coupled with the external ministry of the Word of God in Chapter 10.4. The external ministry of the Word of God is received not only by the elect but also by reprobates. However, the Confession wants to say more. It says that sometimes this external word is also accompanied by the Holy Spirit actually impressing this upon their souls. That is why they can be said to "resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). Some writers note that this work can even make the natural men act in a better way for a time.
We should also note that in other contexts this may also refer to non-saving gifts of service and ministry within the Church. People, like Saul, may have the Spirit of prophecy and still be false Christians, that is, not possessing salvation. This is what we learn from Mt. 7:21-23.
The important qualification in the Confession and those who have described the common operations is that the natural man remains a natural man. He remains a child of the devil, under the wrath of God, dead in his trespasses and sins, and unsaved. The purpose of describing the Spirit's work in some of the reprobate as "common operations" is in fact to deny to them union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and new life. To state otherwise is to ignore the immediate context and the historical context of the phrase. I offer here some quotations from various authors from various periods describing the common operations of the Spirit.
Johannes Vanderkemp, Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism, 1:426: “[They have] only a common operation of his Spirit through which some submit themselves feignedly, and others resist the Spirit, like the Jews (Acts 7:51). And when this is rightly considered, we see how the calling is external and internal, resistible and irresistible; and so the opinion of the Remonstrants, that this calling can be resisted by freewill, and their objections against our doctrine fall to the ground.”
Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity, 3:18: "These are styled, in this answer, the common operations of the Spirit: they may be called operations, inasmuch as they contain in them something more than God's sending ministers to address themselves to sinners, in a way of persuasion or , arguing; for, the Spirit of God deals with their consciences under the ministry of the word. It is true, this is no more than common grace; yet it may be styled the Spirit's work: for though the call be no other than common, and the Spirit considered as an external agent, inasmuch as he never dwells in the hearts of any but believers, yet the effect produced, is internal in the mind and consciences of men, and, in some degree, in the will; which is almost persuaded to comply with it. These operations are sometimes called the 'Spirit's striving with man,' Gen. vi. 3, but inasmuch as many of these internal motions are said to be resisted and quenched, when persons first act contrary to the dictates of their consciences, and afterwards wholly extinguish them ; therefore the Spirit's work in those whom he thus calls, is not effectual or saving; these are not united to Christ by his Spirit, nor by faith; and this is generally styled common grace."
Thomas Erskine, The Doctrine of Election, p. 2: "The doctrine of election generally held is, that God, according to his own inscrutable purpose, has from all eternity chosen in Christ, and predestinated unto salvation, a certain number of individuals out of the fallen race of Adam; and that, in pursuance of this purpose, as these individuals come into the world, he in due season visits them by a peculiar operation of his Spirit, thereby justifying and sanctifying and saving them; whilst he passes by the rest of the race, unvisited by that peculiar operation of the Spirit, and so abandoned to their sins and their punishment. It is an essential part of the doctrine, that the peculiar operation of the Spirit, by which God draws the elect unto himself, is held to be alike irresistible and indispensable in the work of salvation, so that those to whom it is applied cannot be lost, and those to whom it is not applied cannot be saved; whilst all the outward calls of the gospel and what are named common operations of the Spirit, which are granted to the reprobate as well as to the elect, are, when unaccompanied by that peculiar operation, ineffectual to salvation, and do only aggravate the condemnation of the reprobate."
Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1:359: "Neither are we to urge, what we elsewhere about grieving the Spirit of God: because we are to distinguish between the common operations of the Spirit of God, and the special operations of the Spirit of Grace : between the moral and the supernatural actions of the Spirit of Grace : between some more feeble impulses to certain exercises of virtue and piety, and.that grand attempt o; the Spirit, when he goes to convert an elect person. They grieve the Spirit of God, because they rather choose to obey the impulses of the flesh and of the devil, than his holy admonitions, which are partly proposed externally by the word, partly insinuated into their mind by conscience. Believers themselves also grieve the Spirit of Grace, whereby they are sealed, as often as they refuse to comply with his holy admonitions ; and tho' conscience, in which the Spirit has get up his throne, in vain struggles with them, yet they suffer themselves to be carried away by the flesh and the world ; and likewise every time, that, with a becoming reverence of soul, they refuse to receive, cherish, follow his holy impulses, when he quickens them to duty. Whence nothing can be concluded against the - invincible efficacy of God, when he calls internally, and effectually undertakes the conversion of his people."
John Flavel, The Whole Works, 7:124: "The common works found in unregenerate souls deceive many, who cannot distinguish them from the special works of the Spirit in God's elect : fee that startling scripture, Heb. vi. 4. where you find, among the common operations of the Spirit upon apostates, that illumination, which gives perspicuity to their minds in discerning spiritual truths, and that frequently with more distinctness and depth of judgment than some gracious fouls attain unto; besides, it is the matter out of which many rare and excellent gifts are formed in admirable variety, which are singularly useful to others as they are exercised in expounding the scriptures, defending the truths of Christ by solid arguments, preaching, praying, he and make the subject of them renowned and honoured in. the church of God, whilst, mean time, they are dazzled with their own splendor, and fatally ruined by them."
Thomas Manton, Complete Works, 21:311: "These preparations in regard of conversion are like the drying of the wood to the kindling of it or setting it on fire. The dryness of the wood is not the firing of the wood, or any degree of it, only a preparation of the matter, that it may take fire when it is put to it; or like the heating of metals before they are melted, and are cast into the mould to be fashioned. Such kind of preparations there are to regeneration; as when a man by the study of the law hath a discovery and anxious sense of his miserable condition out of Christ,'and doth seriously deliberate what to do, and hath a desire and purpose to make use of all good means for the escaping of God's wrath, us to hear, read, meditate, confer with others about the things that belong to regeneration. We may require you to use all these godly exercises, and to be diligent therein, that you may be in some readiness, and lie near at hand for God's work, which is better than to be afar off. So these preparations are as the drying of the wood, though it be not fired; the heating of the metal, though it be not melted ; and in these we feel some common operations of the Spirit at least; and they that refuse these preparatives are without excuse, and it is a sign they slight reconciliation with God and regeneration by his Spirit. Thus you see why we are to exhort, and you to look after it, that you may lie fair for God's work."
Actually, this phrase has been commonly used and defined throughout the history of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, and there is agreement on its meaning. Remember that this phrase first appears in the chapter in the Westminster Confession on effectual calling. This statement is coupled with the external ministry of the Word of God in Chapter 10.4. The external ministry of the Word of God is received not only by the elect but also by reprobates. However, the Confession wants to say more. It says that sometimes this external word is also accompanied by the Holy Spirit actually impressing this upon their souls. That is why they can be said to "resist the Holy Spirit" (Acts 7:51). Some writers note that this work can even make the natural men act in a better way for a time.
We should also note that in other contexts this may also refer to non-saving gifts of service and ministry within the Church. People, like Saul, may have the Spirit of prophecy and still be false Christians, that is, not possessing salvation. This is what we learn from Mt. 7:21-23.
The important qualification in the Confession and those who have described the common operations is that the natural man remains a natural man. He remains a child of the devil, under the wrath of God, dead in his trespasses and sins, and unsaved. The purpose of describing the Spirit's work in some of the reprobate as "common operations" is in fact to deny to them union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and new life. To state otherwise is to ignore the immediate context and the historical context of the phrase. I offer here some quotations from various authors from various periods describing the common operations of the Spirit.
Johannes Vanderkemp, Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism, 1:426: “[They have] only a common operation of his Spirit through which some submit themselves feignedly, and others resist the Spirit, like the Jews (Acts 7:51). And when this is rightly considered, we see how the calling is external and internal, resistible and irresistible; and so the opinion of the Remonstrants, that this calling can be resisted by freewill, and their objections against our doctrine fall to the ground.”
Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity, 3:18: "These are styled, in this answer, the common operations of the Spirit: they may be called operations, inasmuch as they contain in them something more than God's sending ministers to address themselves to sinners, in a way of persuasion or , arguing; for, the Spirit of God deals with their consciences under the ministry of the word. It is true, this is no more than common grace; yet it may be styled the Spirit's work: for though the call be no other than common, and the Spirit considered as an external agent, inasmuch as he never dwells in the hearts of any but believers, yet the effect produced, is internal in the mind and consciences of men, and, in some degree, in the will; which is almost persuaded to comply with it. These operations are sometimes called the 'Spirit's striving with man,' Gen. vi. 3, but inasmuch as many of these internal motions are said to be resisted and quenched, when persons first act contrary to the dictates of their consciences, and afterwards wholly extinguish them ; therefore the Spirit's work in those whom he thus calls, is not effectual or saving; these are not united to Christ by his Spirit, nor by faith; and this is generally styled common grace."
Thomas Erskine, The Doctrine of Election, p. 2: "The doctrine of election generally held is, that God, according to his own inscrutable purpose, has from all eternity chosen in Christ, and predestinated unto salvation, a certain number of individuals out of the fallen race of Adam; and that, in pursuance of this purpose, as these individuals come into the world, he in due season visits them by a peculiar operation of his Spirit, thereby justifying and sanctifying and saving them; whilst he passes by the rest of the race, unvisited by that peculiar operation of the Spirit, and so abandoned to their sins and their punishment. It is an essential part of the doctrine, that the peculiar operation of the Spirit, by which God draws the elect unto himself, is held to be alike irresistible and indispensable in the work of salvation, so that those to whom it is applied cannot be lost, and those to whom it is not applied cannot be saved; whilst all the outward calls of the gospel and what are named common operations of the Spirit, which are granted to the reprobate as well as to the elect, are, when unaccompanied by that peculiar operation, ineffectual to salvation, and do only aggravate the condemnation of the reprobate."
Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, 1:359: "Neither are we to urge, what we elsewhere about grieving the Spirit of God: because we are to distinguish between the common operations of the Spirit of God, and the special operations of the Spirit of Grace : between the moral and the supernatural actions of the Spirit of Grace : between some more feeble impulses to certain exercises of virtue and piety, and.that grand attempt o; the Spirit, when he goes to convert an elect person. They grieve the Spirit of God, because they rather choose to obey the impulses of the flesh and of the devil, than his holy admonitions, which are partly proposed externally by the word, partly insinuated into their mind by conscience. Believers themselves also grieve the Spirit of Grace, whereby they are sealed, as often as they refuse to comply with his holy admonitions ; and tho' conscience, in which the Spirit has get up his throne, in vain struggles with them, yet they suffer themselves to be carried away by the flesh and the world ; and likewise every time, that, with a becoming reverence of soul, they refuse to receive, cherish, follow his holy impulses, when he quickens them to duty. Whence nothing can be concluded against the - invincible efficacy of God, when he calls internally, and effectually undertakes the conversion of his people."
John Flavel, The Whole Works, 7:124: "The common works found in unregenerate souls deceive many, who cannot distinguish them from the special works of the Spirit in God's elect : fee that startling scripture, Heb. vi. 4. where you find, among the common operations of the Spirit upon apostates, that illumination, which gives perspicuity to their minds in discerning spiritual truths, and that frequently with more distinctness and depth of judgment than some gracious fouls attain unto; besides, it is the matter out of which many rare and excellent gifts are formed in admirable variety, which are singularly useful to others as they are exercised in expounding the scriptures, defending the truths of Christ by solid arguments, preaching, praying, he and make the subject of them renowned and honoured in. the church of God, whilst, mean time, they are dazzled with their own splendor, and fatally ruined by them."
Thomas Manton, Complete Works, 21:311: "These preparations in regard of conversion are like the drying of the wood to the kindling of it or setting it on fire. The dryness of the wood is not the firing of the wood, or any degree of it, only a preparation of the matter, that it may take fire when it is put to it; or like the heating of metals before they are melted, and are cast into the mould to be fashioned. Such kind of preparations there are to regeneration; as when a man by the study of the law hath a discovery and anxious sense of his miserable condition out of Christ,'and doth seriously deliberate what to do, and hath a desire and purpose to make use of all good means for the escaping of God's wrath, us to hear, read, meditate, confer with others about the things that belong to regeneration. We may require you to use all these godly exercises, and to be diligent therein, that you may be in some readiness, and lie near at hand for God's work, which is better than to be afar off. So these preparations are as the drying of the wood, though it be not fired; the heating of the metal, though it be not melted ; and in these we feel some common operations of the Spirit at least; and they that refuse these preparatives are without excuse, and it is a sign they slight reconciliation with God and regeneration by his Spirit. Thus you see why we are to exhort, and you to look after it, that you may lie fair for God's work."
Friday, October 23, 2009
In Defense of Limited Atonement
The question of limited atonement has been one of the most hotly disputed questions both within Reformed theology and without. A recent book has been written calling it a “dilemma” for the Reformed Church. Probably the objection that is most often alleged against it is that it dulls evangelism or even makes it impossible. I have tried to answer that question here. In this article, I would like to address the other major objection which is an exegetical one, taken from Scripture.
Preliminary Considerations and Defining the Question
Herman Witsius, in his discussion of this question, begins with noting several qualifications or things that must be understood before we begin this discussion. These follow closely what is said in Canons of Dort, Head of Doctrine 2.
He notes, first, that this is not a question of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. His atonement is infinitely sufficient to save not only the whole world but many other worlds besides.
Second, it is not a question as to whether Christ as man “subject to the law of love, did, in a holy manner, love all men without distinction, as his neighbours, heartily wished them well, seriously lamented the ruin of those that perished, whom yet, as God, he knew were reprobates, and for whom, as Mediator, he had not engaged.”
Third, it is not a question as to whether Christ’s satisfaction had not occasioned much good even for the reprobate (cf. WLC 61-63, Heb. 6:4-6).
Fourth, it is not a question as to whether “the obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth, that all without exception who come to him, may find perfect salvation in him.”
Fifth, it is not a question as to whether “it was the will of God that this truth should without distinction be proposed both to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to perish; with a charge not to neglect so great salvation, but to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul; and with a most sincere declaration, that all who come to him shall find salvation in him.”
All these points are doctrines that those who hold to limited atonement believe. Keeping these qualifications in mind will help us to be clear about the question that we are actually debating.
So, what is the real question? According to Hodge, “The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son.” “Did [Christ] come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?” In short, was Christ’s atonement intended for all human beings head for head, or did Christ only intend to actually die for the elect?
Preliminary Answer
The answer to this question may be deduced from other Biblical doctrines. First, our whole salvation from beginning to end is given by the grace of God (Rom. 9:16, 18; 11:5-6; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 4:7).
Second, since salvation rests entirely on God’s gift, then it also rests on His will to give that gift.
Third, to all whom God wills to give this salvation, He gives full and final salvation (Rom. 8:28-30).
Fourth, whatever God wills to do, He necessarily accomplishes (Ps. 115:3, Is. 14:24, 27).
Therefore, God’s purpose or intention in sending His Son into the world was only to save the elect. He did not want to save anyone else by Christ's death, or they would have been saved.
The Exegetical Problem
Those who posit an intention in God to save each and every human being respond by saying that such a deduction as used above is using human logic to trump the clear language of Scripture. They point to the phrases in Scripture which speak of salvation in reference to “all men,” “the world,” and “all.” This is the general exegetical or Scriptural problem that we must consider in relation to this issue.
In response, advocates of limited atonement have offered four different lines of interpretation in order to deal with this universal language.
1. God’s will to save all men refers merely to His will to offer Christ for salvation and command all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe in Christ.
2. The world or all refers to the Gentiles and a world-wide Church in contrast to the national Church of the Old Testament.
3. The word “all” refers to a universality of classes but not of individuals. That is, it is speaking of some of every type but not every individual of every type such as “all the animals went into the ark.”
4. The word “all” or “world” refers only to the elect. As the Church Father Prosper said, “In the elect, even those foreknown, and discriminated from every generality, or collective body, there is deemed to be a certain peculiar kind of universality; so as that a whole world seems to be delivered out of a whole world, and all men to be redeemed from among all men."
Those who have held to limited atonement have disagreed concerning which specific line of interpretation should be taken when considering particular verses, but they have agreed that some combination of these four is sufficient to explain these passages. Consequently, they have concluded that there is no need to reconsider the reasoning noted above on account of the Biblical data.
Examination of Particular Passages
Before we examine particular passages, we should note that the universal language is not unique to the New Testament. It is prophesied in the New Testament that salvation will one day be a worldwide phenomenon. In Gen. 12:3, God promised to Abraham that “in you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” This lays the groundwork for many other statements in the Old Testament such as that found in Is. 49:6, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob…I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.”
What is important to note here is that these and many other Old Testament prophecies are just as comprehensive and universal sounding as those of the New Testament. However, it is just as clear that the universal statements of the Old Testament are not abstract statements of God’s will toward mankind but prophecies of the difference between the old era and the new. The universal passages do not describe a universal will in God to save every individual but a prophecy that God’s salvation will go out to the world in general at the time of the coming of the Messiah.
This “time-bound” nature of the "universal" call of salvation is also attested to in the New Testament. Paul told the Athenians, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Paul contrasts the former times in which God did not send out the call to repent to the present time in which He now “commands all men everywhere to repent.”
We believe that a proper understanding of the time-bound nature of the universal call is the key to understanding the "all" and "world" statements both in their own right and in relation to the logical and Scriptural (as we shall see) limitation of God’s will to save and to atone to the elect.
Let us consider some of the key passages.
The two most commonly cited are 1 Tim. 2:4 and Jn. 3:16. 1 Tim. 2:4 states that “God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” In both 1 Tim. 2:4 and Jn. 3:16, it seems to me that the universality of the new era is in view. We can see this from 1 Tim. 2:7, “I was appointed a preacher and apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Thus, Paul emphasizes this universality specifically in terms of his commission to preach to the Gentiles. This is so much the issue in this passage that Paul has to emphasize that he is "speaking the truth in Christ and not lying."
In Jn. 3:16, the word “world” certainly refers to the opposition of the Old and New Testaments. Many Jews thought that God would come and save the Jews and condemn and destroy the world. In actual fact, God did the opposite. He came and saved “the world” and destroyed the Jewish nation. This is also what John the Baptist was referring to when he said that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). He does not merely take away the sin of the Jewish people or one group but the sins of the world. I believe that this is also how 1 Jn. 2:1-2 should be taken. It refers to the generality of the New Testament spread of the Gospel and its benefits in contrast to the national specificity of the Old Testament.
There are other passages that certainly do refer to the universality of the elect. 1 Cor. 15:22 says that “in Christ all shall be made alive.” Here the universality is limited by being “in Christ.” This is also true in the parallel in Rom. 5. There, it is said that judgment comes on all men and the gift comes in the same way. Clearly, not all human beings receive the gift of justification of life. Only some do. Thus, we have the qualification in Rom. 5:19, “For as by one man’s obedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” A similar point could be made about Heb. 2:9 with the v. 10, “many sons.”
Positive Scriptural Proof for a Limited Intention
We have seen that the passages alleged to defeat the idea of a limited intention in fact do not defeat it. However, Scripture also states very clearly that the intention of Christ’s death is limited in its intention.
There are several passages that state that Christ came to lay down His life “for His sheep,” “His people,” and “His Church” (Jn. 10:11, Mt. 1:21, Eph. 5:25-27, Acts 20:28). Some have argued that simply because He intended to die for His Church does not imply that He did not intend to die for anyone else. Hodge responds, “When mankind is divided into two classes, the Church and the world, the friends and the enemies of God, the sheep and the goats, whatever is affirmed distinctively of the one class is impliedly denied of the other.”
Next, there are passages which speak of Christ and His seed (Gen. 3:15, Ps. 89, Is. 53:10, Gal. 3:16). In these passages that Christ’s salvific and atoning work is aimed specifically at His seed whom He receives as the reward of His labor. “When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand’ (Is. 53:10). The reward of His sacrificial work is a seed who will be justified and sanctified through His blood.
Third, we have John 17. In this passage, Jesus describes specifically why He came and for what purpose He was given authority. “You have given Him [the Son] authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” That’s why Jesus prays not for the world but for all “who will believe in Me” (Jn. 17:20). Thus, in His final prayer before His death, Jesus demonstrates that He knows that the intention of God in sending Him into the world was only to give eternal life to a limited number. This is nothing other than the application of the merit of His cross to the elect. This is limited atonement, limited in intention though not in sufficiency.
Finally, we have the very nature of the covenant of grace. This covenant is founded on God’s testament or the covenant of redemption. In that testament and covenant, there are heirs and the Son’s death secures the inheritance for them. “And for this reason, He is the Mediator of the new testament, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). This testamental aspect of the covenant of grace limits the intention of the death of Christ to the heirs who will actually receive the eternal inheritance. The benefits of the death of Christ are intended only for those written in the testament.
Conclusion
The limited intention of the atonement is the clear teaching of Scripture. It fits perfectly with the rest of the Scripture’s teaching on this matter. It further shuts the door to Pelagian errors. Those who argue that the universal passages detract from this view do not properly take into account the time-bound nature of the universal passages.
This does not limit the comfort or the call of the Gospel. Everyone who comes to Jesus can be perfectly confident that they will be received and forgiven of their sins. “All whom the Father has given Me will come, and whoever comes to Me, I will by no means cast out” (Jn. 6:37).
Instead, this doctrine gives us great comfort. Christ's death once applied to Me will never be revoked. He who has justified me by the blood of Christ will certainly and infallibly glorify me. This was His intention from eternity, and no one can annul what God has decreed. My salvation is secure forever, sealed with the perfect seal of Christ's blood.
Preliminary Considerations and Defining the Question
Herman Witsius, in his discussion of this question, begins with noting several qualifications or things that must be understood before we begin this discussion. These follow closely what is said in Canons of Dort, Head of Doctrine 2.
He notes, first, that this is not a question of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. His atonement is infinitely sufficient to save not only the whole world but many other worlds besides.
Second, it is not a question as to whether Christ as man “subject to the law of love, did, in a holy manner, love all men without distinction, as his neighbours, heartily wished them well, seriously lamented the ruin of those that perished, whom yet, as God, he knew were reprobates, and for whom, as Mediator, he had not engaged.”
Third, it is not a question as to whether Christ’s satisfaction had not occasioned much good even for the reprobate (cf. WLC 61-63, Heb. 6:4-6).
Fourth, it is not a question as to whether “the obedience and sufferings of Christ are of such worth, that all without exception who come to him, may find perfect salvation in him.”
Fifth, it is not a question as to whether “it was the will of God that this truth should without distinction be proposed both to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to perish; with a charge not to neglect so great salvation, but to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul; and with a most sincere declaration, that all who come to him shall find salvation in him.”
All these points are doctrines that those who hold to limited atonement believe. Keeping these qualifications in mind will help us to be clear about the question that we are actually debating.
So, what is the real question? According to Hodge, “The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son.” “Did [Christ] come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?” In short, was Christ’s atonement intended for all human beings head for head, or did Christ only intend to actually die for the elect?
Preliminary Answer
The answer to this question may be deduced from other Biblical doctrines. First, our whole salvation from beginning to end is given by the grace of God (Rom. 9:16, 18; 11:5-6; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 4:7).
Second, since salvation rests entirely on God’s gift, then it also rests on His will to give that gift.
Third, to all whom God wills to give this salvation, He gives full and final salvation (Rom. 8:28-30).
Fourth, whatever God wills to do, He necessarily accomplishes (Ps. 115:3, Is. 14:24, 27).
Therefore, God’s purpose or intention in sending His Son into the world was only to save the elect. He did not want to save anyone else by Christ's death, or they would have been saved.
The Exegetical Problem
Those who posit an intention in God to save each and every human being respond by saying that such a deduction as used above is using human logic to trump the clear language of Scripture. They point to the phrases in Scripture which speak of salvation in reference to “all men,” “the world,” and “all.” This is the general exegetical or Scriptural problem that we must consider in relation to this issue.
In response, advocates of limited atonement have offered four different lines of interpretation in order to deal with this universal language.
1. God’s will to save all men refers merely to His will to offer Christ for salvation and command all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe in Christ.
2. The world or all refers to the Gentiles and a world-wide Church in contrast to the national Church of the Old Testament.
3. The word “all” refers to a universality of classes but not of individuals. That is, it is speaking of some of every type but not every individual of every type such as “all the animals went into the ark.”
4. The word “all” or “world” refers only to the elect. As the Church Father Prosper said, “In the elect, even those foreknown, and discriminated from every generality, or collective body, there is deemed to be a certain peculiar kind of universality; so as that a whole world seems to be delivered out of a whole world, and all men to be redeemed from among all men."
Those who have held to limited atonement have disagreed concerning which specific line of interpretation should be taken when considering particular verses, but they have agreed that some combination of these four is sufficient to explain these passages. Consequently, they have concluded that there is no need to reconsider the reasoning noted above on account of the Biblical data.
Examination of Particular Passages
Before we examine particular passages, we should note that the universal language is not unique to the New Testament. It is prophesied in the New Testament that salvation will one day be a worldwide phenomenon. In Gen. 12:3, God promised to Abraham that “in you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” This lays the groundwork for many other statements in the Old Testament such as that found in Is. 49:6, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob…I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.”
What is important to note here is that these and many other Old Testament prophecies are just as comprehensive and universal sounding as those of the New Testament. However, it is just as clear that the universal statements of the Old Testament are not abstract statements of God’s will toward mankind but prophecies of the difference between the old era and the new. The universal passages do not describe a universal will in God to save every individual but a prophecy that God’s salvation will go out to the world in general at the time of the coming of the Messiah.
This “time-bound” nature of the "universal" call of salvation is also attested to in the New Testament. Paul told the Athenians, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Paul contrasts the former times in which God did not send out the call to repent to the present time in which He now “commands all men everywhere to repent.”
We believe that a proper understanding of the time-bound nature of the universal call is the key to understanding the "all" and "world" statements both in their own right and in relation to the logical and Scriptural (as we shall see) limitation of God’s will to save and to atone to the elect.
Let us consider some of the key passages.
The two most commonly cited are 1 Tim. 2:4 and Jn. 3:16. 1 Tim. 2:4 states that “God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” In both 1 Tim. 2:4 and Jn. 3:16, it seems to me that the universality of the new era is in view. We can see this from 1 Tim. 2:7, “I was appointed a preacher and apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Thus, Paul emphasizes this universality specifically in terms of his commission to preach to the Gentiles. This is so much the issue in this passage that Paul has to emphasize that he is "speaking the truth in Christ and not lying."
In Jn. 3:16, the word “world” certainly refers to the opposition of the Old and New Testaments. Many Jews thought that God would come and save the Jews and condemn and destroy the world. In actual fact, God did the opposite. He came and saved “the world” and destroyed the Jewish nation. This is also what John the Baptist was referring to when he said that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). He does not merely take away the sin of the Jewish people or one group but the sins of the world. I believe that this is also how 1 Jn. 2:1-2 should be taken. It refers to the generality of the New Testament spread of the Gospel and its benefits in contrast to the national specificity of the Old Testament.
There are other passages that certainly do refer to the universality of the elect. 1 Cor. 15:22 says that “in Christ all shall be made alive.” Here the universality is limited by being “in Christ.” This is also true in the parallel in Rom. 5. There, it is said that judgment comes on all men and the gift comes in the same way. Clearly, not all human beings receive the gift of justification of life. Only some do. Thus, we have the qualification in Rom. 5:19, “For as by one man’s obedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” A similar point could be made about Heb. 2:9 with the v. 10, “many sons.”
Positive Scriptural Proof for a Limited Intention
We have seen that the passages alleged to defeat the idea of a limited intention in fact do not defeat it. However, Scripture also states very clearly that the intention of Christ’s death is limited in its intention.
There are several passages that state that Christ came to lay down His life “for His sheep,” “His people,” and “His Church” (Jn. 10:11, Mt. 1:21, Eph. 5:25-27, Acts 20:28). Some have argued that simply because He intended to die for His Church does not imply that He did not intend to die for anyone else. Hodge responds, “When mankind is divided into two classes, the Church and the world, the friends and the enemies of God, the sheep and the goats, whatever is affirmed distinctively of the one class is impliedly denied of the other.”
Next, there are passages which speak of Christ and His seed (Gen. 3:15, Ps. 89, Is. 53:10, Gal. 3:16). In these passages that Christ’s salvific and atoning work is aimed specifically at His seed whom He receives as the reward of His labor. “When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand’ (Is. 53:10). The reward of His sacrificial work is a seed who will be justified and sanctified through His blood.
Third, we have John 17. In this passage, Jesus describes specifically why He came and for what purpose He was given authority. “You have given Him [the Son] authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.” That’s why Jesus prays not for the world but for all “who will believe in Me” (Jn. 17:20). Thus, in His final prayer before His death, Jesus demonstrates that He knows that the intention of God in sending Him into the world was only to give eternal life to a limited number. This is nothing other than the application of the merit of His cross to the elect. This is limited atonement, limited in intention though not in sufficiency.
Finally, we have the very nature of the covenant of grace. This covenant is founded on God’s testament or the covenant of redemption. In that testament and covenant, there are heirs and the Son’s death secures the inheritance for them. “And for this reason, He is the Mediator of the new testament, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). This testamental aspect of the covenant of grace limits the intention of the death of Christ to the heirs who will actually receive the eternal inheritance. The benefits of the death of Christ are intended only for those written in the testament.
Conclusion
The limited intention of the atonement is the clear teaching of Scripture. It fits perfectly with the rest of the Scripture’s teaching on this matter. It further shuts the door to Pelagian errors. Those who argue that the universal passages detract from this view do not properly take into account the time-bound nature of the universal passages.
This does not limit the comfort or the call of the Gospel. Everyone who comes to Jesus can be perfectly confident that they will be received and forgiven of their sins. “All whom the Father has given Me will come, and whoever comes to Me, I will by no means cast out” (Jn. 6:37).
Instead, this doctrine gives us great comfort. Christ's death once applied to Me will never be revoked. He who has justified me by the blood of Christ will certainly and infallibly glorify me. This was His intention from eternity, and no one can annul what God has decreed. My salvation is secure forever, sealed with the perfect seal of Christ's blood.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Enjoying the Comfort of Christ's Coming in Judgment
The Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 52 says this:
I think there are three particular items here that challenge our common view of things.
1. Christ’s coming is a comfort to us. How often do we take comfort from Christ’s return? Now, I know that there some of you who read this do often take comfort from it. I would just urge you to do so all the more. We need to see the identity of the Christian as one who looks for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (Nicene Creed). The Bible teaches us that Christ comes only for those who are hoping for His coming. “To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Heb. 9:28).
2. We are a people who have enemies. Perhaps someone will say, “Yes. I do have enemies, and I think I would be glad to see them cast into everlasting condemnation.” If that is the case, I imagine that you have the wrong enemies. However, I do think that many Christians think very little about the enemies of their souls. We should be conscious of the conflict that we have with the world, the flesh, and the devil. These enemies rage against us to keep us from salvation or the enjoyment of it. If we truly desire communion with God above all, then that which opposes that communion will be our greatest enemy. The trouble is that we often think of enemies only or primarily in terms of those who take away the health or prosperity of our body. For those who feel the weight of this conflict, the return of Jesus Christ is a great comfort.
3. This leads us to the third point. Are we looking forward to “heavenly joys and glory”? Of course, everyone will say, “I want heavenly joy.” But what do they pursue in this life? Only those things that have to do with this life and the earth. We find our happiness and delight in the things of the world rather than in God. The prosperity that we enjoy causes to devote ourselves to things on the earth all the more (cf. Col. 3:2). For those who set their hearts on things above, Christ’s coming is a great comfort because it will be the consummation of those wonderful spiritual experiences that we have enjoyed on earth. For those who seek after heavenly joys and find their comfort in God, Christ’s coming is a marvelous comfort.
Johannes Vanderkemp, in his excellent sermon on this passage, gives us a few points of application on this question.
1. “Be moderate in eating, drinking, clothing, worldly cares and diversions, that ye may not unfit yourselves for waiting for his coming. This is so strictly enjoined on you by the Judge, Luke xxi.34. ‘Take heed to yourselves, that your hearts be not overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.’”
2. “Do nothing now, which ye wish should not be made known on that day, but conduct yourselves as ye wish that Christ should find you at his coming.”
3. “It doth not become you to be so impatient, and to hurry so to be healed, and delivered from all your pains here, as soon as they attack you. It is not seemly in Christians neither, to let their heads hang as a bulrush, on account of troubles: let those act so, who have no hope in the coming of Christ: but as for you, believers, look, with uplifted heads, for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; who hath given himself for you, that he might redeem you.”
Q. What comfort is it to thee, that “Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead?” A. That in all my sorrows and persecutions, with uplifted head, I look for the very same Person, who before offered himself for my sake, to the tribunal of God, and hat removed all curse from me; to come as Judge from heaven: who shall cast all his and my enemies into everlasting condemnation, but shall translate me with all his chosen ones to himself, into heavenly joys and glory.
I think there are three particular items here that challenge our common view of things.
1. Christ’s coming is a comfort to us. How often do we take comfort from Christ’s return? Now, I know that there some of you who read this do often take comfort from it. I would just urge you to do so all the more. We need to see the identity of the Christian as one who looks for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come (Nicene Creed). The Bible teaches us that Christ comes only for those who are hoping for His coming. “To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Heb. 9:28).
2. We are a people who have enemies. Perhaps someone will say, “Yes. I do have enemies, and I think I would be glad to see them cast into everlasting condemnation.” If that is the case, I imagine that you have the wrong enemies. However, I do think that many Christians think very little about the enemies of their souls. We should be conscious of the conflict that we have with the world, the flesh, and the devil. These enemies rage against us to keep us from salvation or the enjoyment of it. If we truly desire communion with God above all, then that which opposes that communion will be our greatest enemy. The trouble is that we often think of enemies only or primarily in terms of those who take away the health or prosperity of our body. For those who feel the weight of this conflict, the return of Jesus Christ is a great comfort.
3. This leads us to the third point. Are we looking forward to “heavenly joys and glory”? Of course, everyone will say, “I want heavenly joy.” But what do they pursue in this life? Only those things that have to do with this life and the earth. We find our happiness and delight in the things of the world rather than in God. The prosperity that we enjoy causes to devote ourselves to things on the earth all the more (cf. Col. 3:2). For those who set their hearts on things above, Christ’s coming is a great comfort because it will be the consummation of those wonderful spiritual experiences that we have enjoyed on earth. For those who seek after heavenly joys and find their comfort in God, Christ’s coming is a marvelous comfort.
Johannes Vanderkemp, in his excellent sermon on this passage, gives us a few points of application on this question.
1. “Be moderate in eating, drinking, clothing, worldly cares and diversions, that ye may not unfit yourselves for waiting for his coming. This is so strictly enjoined on you by the Judge, Luke xxi.34. ‘Take heed to yourselves, that your hearts be not overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.’”
2. “Do nothing now, which ye wish should not be made known on that day, but conduct yourselves as ye wish that Christ should find you at his coming.”
3. “It doth not become you to be so impatient, and to hurry so to be healed, and delivered from all your pains here, as soon as they attack you. It is not seemly in Christians neither, to let their heads hang as a bulrush, on account of troubles: let those act so, who have no hope in the coming of Christ: but as for you, believers, look, with uplifted heads, for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; who hath given himself for you, that he might redeem you.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
