PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE

I have no time for a comprehensive survey of every historical Reformed formulation on the extent of the Atonement, but it might be helpful to point out a few to show that there is more than one option. Let’s start with Calvin: In Book III of his Institutes, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ . . . ,” he states:

We must now examine this question. How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son-not for Christ’s own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us . . . for, as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits [ III, 1.1, Ford Lewis Battles, tr (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 537 (emphasis added)].

Now, while I think it is anachronistic to ask if Calvin believed in limited atonement (and light-years beyond the scope of this post!–and unnecessary since it has now been addressed elsewhere), it is worth asking if modern calvinists are comfortable with this formulation, especially having been taught to worry about the alleged efficacy of the atonement. Calvin obviously believed in predestination. He also believed that God sent His Son to wrought a salvation for those people whom the Father elected to eternal life. Yet, he obviously thought this salvation was “potential,” for no one is saved until they are given union with Christ. It is not the atonement which is intrinsically “definite,” but rather the intention of God and the work of the Spirit. Continue reading →

PART ONE

PART TWO

Murray writes,

If some for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character. We shall have none of it. The doctrine of “limited atonement” which we maintain is the doctrine which limits the atonement to those who are heirs of eternal life, to the elect. That limitation insures its efficacy and conserves its essential character as efficient and effective redemption [Redemption: Accomplished & Applied, p. 64].

Again, this critique should give Arminians pause, but it does not seem all that persuasive to predestinarians. After all, many elect persons are dead in their sins for years, and by nature object of God’s wrath. If the atonement is so efficacious, why aren’t these people all justified from the moment they are conceived? Why does not the Holy Spirit come upon them in the womb?

The fact is that different people appropriate the atonement at various stages in life. It is hard to understand why the unsaved status of one “for whom the atonement was made” does not raise any questions about the efficacy of the atonement, given the logic of Murray’s. If it is possible for a person to remain under the wrath of God for a period of time, though Christ died for that person, then why couldn’t there be a sense in which Christ died for the non-elect? Murray himself believes that Christ died to give the non-elect gifts, albeit non-saving ones. Then by his own definition, the atonement is indeed, in some sense, “for” the non-elect.

Finally, what about the Holy Spirit?  I think the Westminster Confession makes a good deal of Biblical sense when it states that,

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

So why are we talking about the efficacy of the atonement apart from application.  It frames the entire issue in a different way than the Westminster Confession and, in my opinion, a much more confusing way.  The question of “Limited Atonement” ought to be about God’s intention, not about the Atonement’s “efficacy.”  At the Synod of Dordt, the Remonstrants claim that there was nothing further to say about God’s intention in sending his Son to die other than his general attempt to save all people.  The orthodox pointed out from Scripture that the Bible says more than that.  But the whole debate was over God’s intention and whether or not he had a specific plan that he would definitely bring about.

Somehow it has become acceptable to make the entire question hinge, not on the decrees, but on the nature of the substitutionary exchange.

But this has massive consequences.  To begin with, we will have to dump justification by faith. If all that matters is the price paid, then the elect are conceived and born justified prior to regeneration.

A second problem is that it makes the work of a person of the Trinity a consequence rather than a true author and means of our salvation.  Is the Holy Spirit’s work merely a result of the cross of Christ, or is His Work truly the means by which the cross of Christ becomes effective for us in justification and all other benefits?  I think the latter is obviously both Biblical and Reformed (at least, it is the straightforward teaching of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms).

Murray, in my opinion, should have defended the limit according to the limitations–the specificity–of God’s infallible decree regarding who would be saved through the atonement and who would not benefit from it savingly.  Bringing up an “efficacy” of the atonement distracts us from the true Calvinist heritage of the efficacy of God’s Spirit in efficaciously calling the elect into saving union with Christ.

[CONTINUED FROM HERE]

Murray asks, “Did Christ come to make the salvation of men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, and merely to make provision for salvation? Or did he come to save his people?”[Redemption: Accomplished & Applied, p. 63] Now this question has plenty of teeth in it when used against Arminians, who do not believe that God infallibly and monergistically saves whom He wills to save. They believe that who is saved and who is not is a contingent matter as far as God is concerned. He can only offer up His Son and hope for the best. But this is not the issue among predestinarians. If God is sovereign, then a work which makes provision for salvation does not in any way mean that salvation is any less certain for those whom God has determined to save.

Nor is it self-evident that “merely” making salvation possible is some sort of insult to Christ. To see this we need only change one word in Murray’s question: Did Christ come to make the justification of men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of justification, and merely to make provision for justification? Or did he come to justify his people? According to Murray, Christ made justification possible; it is made actual in time by faith [Ibid, p. 128]. Yet in what sense are individuals saved before they are justified? It simply does not seem possible. Furthermore, any attempt to solve this issue by distinguishing the “objective” work from the “subjective” seems to make personal justification a mere realization of what has already taken place.

What happens when a Reformed Protestant sees an argument for Roman Catholic prayers to the dead? Or Roman Catholic suffering in Purgatory to make up for sins to merit Heaven? Or Eastern Orthodox arguments for icons? Or the rite of chrismation?

Pretty much, mocking ridicule, not just because the conclusion is wrong but because the argument itself is so stupid.

I’m not going to comment on the propriety of Protestant reactions to this stuff. I’m just going to make a plea for impartiality. When we read such gems as,

Though Christ did not offer or tender the blessings of grace to any, much less to them in general; but as a preacher of the Gospel, published the truths of it to all; and as the Mediator of the new covenant, dispensed blessings of it to those who were (not should be) given him by the Father.

shouldn’t we acknowledge that no “Romanist” superstition ever did worse violence to Scripture? Honestly. This really is on the level of news stories about Mary’s profile appearing in some lady’s scrambled eggs.

It is corrupt stupidity that people would, in the name of a “truth” they pretend to understand, go through the Scriptures with an editing pen of special pleading, and line after line get rid of the Word of God.

Jesus exhorted people time and again to repent and believe in Him, to take up their cross and follow him, through the Apostles to be reconciled to God. It would be insulting to any rationale person’s intelligence to go through all the times in which people in general are offered salvation in accord with the Gospel declaration that Jesus is Lord.

This demon needs to be exorcised from the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition once and for all. It makes us look like morons and makes Arminianism look plausible. The fact that this crap continues to come up in a tradition that prides itself on intellectual rigor makes us the laughingstock of Christendom. At least people who go to laughing revivals don’t boast in their systematic thinking.

PS. Full disclosure: I’m talking about an error that, in one form, I once embraced and spread. And I’m certainly open to the option that it is rarely helpful to use mockery in any of these views. I’m sure that there are occasions when it is best to give every view “its day in court.” What I don’t like to see is a protected sub-culture that is allowed to continue because no one calls a spade a spade. That is the point of this entry, and my plan is for it to be unique in its tone–though I’m not apologizing for it.

Murray insisted that the genuine offer was compatible, not only with the doctrine of reprobation (which it is), but also with the doctrine of limited atonement–”the doctrines of particular election, differentiating love, and limited atonement do not erect any fence around the offer of the Gospel” [“The Atonement & the Free Offer of the Gospel,” Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 81.]–and wrote an essay giving his conception of their relationship.

As in his chapter in Redemption: Accomplished & Applied [especially p. 64], Murray insists that the atonement is either limited in extent or limited in efficacy. Murray sides with a limited extent claiming that a limited efficacy would mean that there is no Gospel to freely and sincerely offer:

If Christ-and therefore salvation in its fullness and perfection-is offered, the only doctrine of the atonement that will ground and warrant this overture is that of salvation wrought and redemption accomplished. And the only atonement that measures up to such conditions is a definite atonement. In other words, an atonement construed as providing the possibility of salvation or the opportunity of salvation does not supply the basis required for what constitutes the gospel offer. It is not the opportunity of salvation that is offered; it is salvation. And it is salvation because Christ is offered and Christ does not invite us to mere opportunity but to himself [Collected Writings, vol. 1, p. 83].

Here I begin to get confused. There is a vast difference between saying Christ died only so that those who hear the Gospel might have the opportunity to be saved and saying that the evangelist presents his listeners with the opportunity to be saved. The latter statement is most certainly correct and perfectly compatible with predestination. All who hear the Gospel have the opportunity of salvation. They may take advantage of that opportunity by repentance from sin and faith toward Christ. Obviously, only those effectually called will take advantage of this opportunity.

(For the record, I am curious about the term, “extent,” in this discussion. The issue of the atonement has traditionally been about the intent behind God’s ordaining that atonement would be made. I frankly question whether it is clear what is meant by “extent.”)

(I would also like to do some research into the term “efficacious” as it has been applied to the atonement. It is hard to see how questions of individual application could ever surface in a tradition that spoke of efficacy as John Murray does.)

Limited Atonement & the Object of Faith

The fact is, despite Murray’s assertions to the contrary, it is hard for me to see how his formulation of limited atonement, does not undermine his defense of the genuine offer.

This is the problem: Sinners are justified through faith. They must trust in Jesus Christ to save them instead of themselves. This means, among other things, they must believe that Jesus’ atonement satisfied for all their sins. But that is exactly what certain portrayals of limited atonement will not allow them to do. Limited atonement is often articulated in such a way that Christ died for some people somewhere. But believing that Christ died for some unidentified people cannot possibly be enough for saving faith; even Satan could believe such a thing!

To see the problem more clearly, let’s consider the case of a stereotypical “christian” legalist being confronted with the Gospel: How can he turn from trusting in his own works to trusting in the work of Christ if in fact he has no reason to believe that the work of Christ was done for him? If faith requires an object, then conversion is impossible because there is nothing to which to convert. There is no atoning work which one can trust.

To say that Christ’s atonement is satisfactory for the sins of all those who will repent is no help here. Reformed dogmatics in general, and John Murray in particular, is quite clear that faith and repentance are inseparable [“The question has been discussed: which is prior, faith or repentance? It is an unnecessary question and the insistence that one is prior to the other futile. There is no priority. The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance.” Redemption: Accomplished & Applied (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1955), p. 113.] But to encourage people to repent and follow Christ that they may be assured that the atonement satisfies for them, puts asunder what God has joined together. The recipients of the Gospel are put in the rather terrifying position of going through the motions (profession, baptism, prayer, and other good works with which one wishes to demonstrate regeneration) in the hope that, once in the “visible church,” they might come to believe that their sins have been atoned for.

(This is a purely speculative point, which needs to be confirmed or denied by historical research, but I can’t help wondering if this situation did not obtain in the heyday of Puritanism. The horrible idea of “preparationism” and the expectation that Christians should live for years without assurance of their election were both products of that period. Did this have something to do with limited atonement?)

The bottom line here is that I cannot tell with Murray if the elect are already saved by Christ and discover this fact when they hear the Gospel, or if they are saved by the Holy Spirit’s application of the work of Christ to them. Murray is quite insistent that the elect are justified, sanctified, etc., at some point during their lives, but it is difficult to see how he can make good on his claim. As a result, a tension is created between presenting an opportunity for salvation and simply declaring the salvation of the elect, whoever they may be.

A major reason for the posts in this category is to remove imagined obstructions to Calvinists sharing the Gospel in true sincerity. A second major reason is to convince arminians that those imagined obstructions are indeed imaginary, and any imagined evidence from those called “Calvinists” is an accident, not some “essence of the system”–if indeed systems have essences.

To tell someone “if you believe, you will be saved,”

1. does not imply that a person saves himself by his own works
2. does not deny that faith is a gift of God
3. does make an essential demand of the Gospel that Christians are supposed to articulate without second guessing themselves.

This is also important for ministry in the visible Church (“visible” is redundant here; what other church would one do or experience ministry in?). For example, when Jesus tells his discipels that he who perseveres to the end will be saved (Matt 10.22; 24.13; Mark 13.13), he is not implying

1. that those chosen for salvation might not actually receive that salvation.
2. that perseverance is “man’s part” in a way that means it is not God’s gift.
3. that those who trust in God cannot possess assurance that they will inherit what God has promised.

In one sense, this is a sectarian polemical point: Arminians don’t have a text against Calvinists.  On the other hand, this is also an ecumenical point: Arminians and Calvinists alike can proclaim the offer of the Gospel.

Hypercalvinism is a commitment to only using the word “grace” for that which brings about eternal salvation.  Anything less than that must never be thought of or spoken of as gracious.

And that is exactly what we find argued.  The only grace worth mentioning is the “amazing” kind that leads infallibly for eternal life.

And like Hoeksema did for Van Til, anyone who defends a “common grace” may be called a liar who really doesn’t believe in any form of invincible grace at all.

This argument has been going on in some way in all the posts in this category.  However, some posts are more directly involved than others.

1. A sermon I preached many years ago from Ephesians
2. The Genuine Offer of the Gospel
3. Hoeksema and Engelsma against the Genuine Offer of the Gospel.
4. Gary North against the Free Offer of the Gospel.
5. Grace, ingratitude, and grades within common grace.
6. The Gospel Offer is Sincere.
7. God’s Plan, God’s Attitude, and the Nature of Things.

Basically, I believe my argument has been this:
The reality of reprobation seems to eliminate the possibility of God’s favor toward the reprobate.

Yet reprobation presupposes God’s gracious lovingkindness which sinners are foreordained to reject. Whether this non-saving grace is mere sunlight, or a full-orbed presentation of the Gospel, it represents God’s sincere and genuine love, for which the reprobate will be condemned for rejecting.

Thus, the exegetical findings of Murray in his defense of the genuine offer of the Gospel are not subversive to the truth of God’s absolute predestination.

Our initial evaluation of the relationship between common grace and reprobation stands: without the former the latter could not happen.

Since these entries have focused on John Murray, however, I think there is more that should be dealt with–John Murray’s particular formulations regarding the doctrine of limited atonement.

So more to come.