The following is a discussion on particular redemption which took place between my friend, John Hendryx and a non-Calvinist (Joshua) in response to a quote someone posted online by John Piper.
“The main point of the doctrine of limited atonement is not to assert that Christ did not die for everyone in the sense that John 3:16 says he did: “For God so loved the world, pills that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” That is absolutely true: Christ died so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life. Christ’s death is sufficient for all, and should be offered to all as gloriously sufficient to save them if they will believe. “Limited atonement” does not deny any of that…
Today we focus on the third “D”—the duty that we have to believe. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him might not perish.”
Let me focus our attention on this act of believing from several different angles.”
“Believing is our link with the love of God. Notice how Jesus speaks of God’s love-rescue: God so loved the world so that believers will not perish. One of the ways to express this is that the Love of God is sufficient to save the world, but efficient to save those who believe. Efficient means his love actually saves believers. It is effective in saving them from perishing. The love of God does not have this effect in the lives of those who do not believe. They perish.” (John Piper)
Joshua: What good is saying it’s “sufficient for all” if it’s not intended for all? It’s like a tease to the “non-elect”.
Response: you can’t tease someone who does not want it. The call to believe the gospel goes out to all. If men reject Jesus it is their own fault. God does not coerce them or hold them back … they do so on their own. The opportunity to believe is open to all… but no one believes … yet God is still merciful to more ill deserving sinners than any man can count.
Joshua: Can’t tease someone who doesn’t want it? NOBODY wants it prior to conversion. Do you believe 1 Timothy 4:10?
Response: Joshua, that was the point. Nobody wants Christ prior to regeneration. (John:6:63, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; 12:3) The gospel call to believe goes out to all people without exception. But only those whom God inwardly calls by the Holy Spirit come to Christ. The Apostle declares, “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, (universal rejection) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (salvation) – 1 Cor 1:23-24.
There are non redemptive benefits to the atonement, but the redemptive benefits (such as effectual grace) go to the elect only.
Calvinists have always believed that the atonement has non redemptive benefits even for the non elect but the main issues is REDEMPTIVE benefits, which is why we call it particular redemption… check out Jonathan Edwards acknowledging non redemptive benefits for all.. especially pay attention to the last line.
“Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction. -Jonathan Edwards [1722], The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 1 74”
Joshua: Yes I’m familiar with Edwards and all the Calvi arguments in general. I’ll stick with what Scripture says.
Response: Joshua, it appears you missed the point … I was responding to your question about 1 Tim 4:10. That Jesus is the savior of all men especially those who believe – That all men are called and given an opportunity to believe the gospel… Calvinists do not disagree with that.
T – TOTAL DEPRAVITY
When man first sinned he died (Genesis 2:17). Now man is spiritually dead, not well, not sick, not even terminally ill, but dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). His depravity pertaining to all aspects of his personality is total. This is not to be confused with UTTER depravity, for there is room for deprovement. Consequently this slave of sin (John 8:34), exploits every opportunity to sin in every area of his being: in thought, word and deed, by commission and omission, and even his good works are bad (Genesis 6:5). Total depravity is our one original contribution to TULIP. We are the dirty soil in which God plants His flower, and from our filth, produces a thing of divine beauty.
U – UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
If man is as depraved as the Bible says he is, his divine election to salvation would have to be as unconditional as the Bible says it is (Rom. 9:15). How could totally depraved persons exercise faith in a God they hate, or behave virtuously while averse to virtue? If it were a matter of foreseeing, what would God foresee but sin and unbelief unless He elected to rescue some of the deservedly perishing? The election to salvation is absolutely unconditional, but the salvation is not, faith being its prerequisite and good works its post-requisite.
L – LIMITED ATONEMENT
The atonement is the means by which God brings totally depraved but unconditionally elect persons to Himself without violence to His own inexorable holiness. His mercy constrains Him to save and His holiness restrains Him from saving unjustly. So God became man in Christ that He could pay the price of sin and remained God. He did not empty Himself of deity when He became incarnate so that the purchase was infinite in value. Thus the atonement was unlimited in its sufficiency, as in its offer, and limited only in its specific design, for those who believe (John 3:16). Those who believe are the elect (Rom. 8:30). “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” at once explains the unconditional character of election and the limited-ness of the atonement.
I – IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
The infinitely precious atonement would be of no value because totally depraved persons even though elect, are utterly hostile to God unless something was done to them in grace that corresponded to what was done for them in the atonement. Saving grace need not only to be provided but applied by means of union with Christ and regeneration. This divine grace is irresistible or efficacious because it mercifully changes the depraved soul. When a person is born again from above by the Spirit, he, as a new creature finds it as natural (that is irresistible) to come to Christ as in his depravity he finds it natural (that is irresistible) to flee from Him (John 3:3-8). Grace is irresistible not by being against man’s will but by recreating his will.
P – PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
The purpose of God would still fail if the last one of Christ’s sheep were not brought and kept within His fold (John 17:20, 21; 2 Pet. 3:9). So the saints must be persevering and this could only be possible or certain by God’s preserving. Having put His hand to the plow God never turns back (Phil. 1:6). Because He does not, neither do His saints (Phil. 2:11, 12). The perseverance by the saints is the consequence of the preservation of the saints. Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus on whom our faith depends from beginning to end (Heb. 12:2).
Original source the Bible mentions the phrase ‘the book of life’ about fourteen times, and quite a few of those passages mention getting blotted out of the book of life. How does this NOT mean losing your salvation?” What would you say Pastor John?
When it comes to the doctrine of eternal security or perseverance of the saints, we need to speak with precision. And I think it is not quite precise to say, as Charles does, in quite a few of the Scriptures it mentions you can be blotted out of the book of life. I don’t think it ever says you can be blotted out, at least not in the sense that sometimes God does it. It says we will be blotted out if we fail to meet certain conditions. Now whether that ever happens or in God’s sovereignty can happen is another question. I don’t think so and let me try to show why.
The book of Revelation is the book that refers to this most often and it is the book that has the text that sounds most problematical, I think. Revelation 3:5 says, “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Now some say: Well, that is a foolproof text against the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints or eternal security. They assume that when Revelation 3:5 says that God will not erase a person’s name from the book of life, it implies that he does erase some people from the book of life, and that these people would once be born again, justified, saved, and, nevertheless, in the end condemned, lost, and perish. In other words, they lose their salvation on that reading of the verse.
But is that a true assumption?
The promise: “I will not erase his name from the book of life” does not necessarily imply that some do have their names erased. It simply says, to the one who is in the book, and who conquers in faith: I will never wipe your name out. In other words, being erased is a fearful prospect, which I will not allow to happen to those who persevere. In fact, there are two other passages in Revelation that teach that to have your name in the book of life means that you will most definitely persevere and conquer and thus meet the condition not to be blotted out.
Revelation 13:8 says: “And all who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” Now that verse teaches that those whose names are written in the book of life definitely will not worship the beast. That is what it says. In other words, having your name in the book of life from the foundation of the world means God will keep you from folly. He will cause you to persevere in allegiance to God. Being in the book means you will not apostatize. You won’t forsake the faith. Continue reading
The following excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s commentary on John.
The doctrine of limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) says that the atonement of Christ was limited (in its scope and aim) to the elect; Jesus did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world. In my denomination, we examine young men going into the ministry, and invariably somebody will ask a student, “Do you believe in limited atonement?” The student will respond by saying, “Yes, I believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all and efficient for some,” meaning the value of Christ’s death on the cross was great enough to cover all of the sins of every person that ever lived, but that it applies only to those who put their faith in Christ. However, that statement doesn’t get at the real heart of the controversy, which has to do with God’s purpose in the cross.
There are basically two ways in which to understand God’s eternal plan. One understanding is that, from all eternity, God had a desire to save as many people as possible out of the fallen human race, so He conceived a plan of redemption by which He would send His Son into the world as the sin-bearer for fallen people. Jesus would go to the cross and die for all who would at some point put their trust in him. So the plan was provisional—God provided atonement for all who take advantage of it, for all who believe. The idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. This is the prevailing view in the church today—that Jesus died for everybody provisionally. In the final analysis, whether salvation happens depends on each individual person.
The Reformed view understands God’s plan differently. It says that God, from all eternity, devised a plan that was not provisional. It was a plan “A” with no plan “B” to follow if it didn’t work. Under this plan, God decreed that He would save a certain number of people out of fallen humanity, people whom the Bible calls the elect. In order for that plan of election to work out in history, He sent His Son into the world with the specific aim and design to accomplish redemption for the elect. This was accomplished perfectly, without a drop of the blood of Christ being wasted. Everyone whom the Father chose for salvation will be saved through the atonement.
The implication of the non-Reformed view is that God doesn’t know in advance who is going to be saved. For this reason, there are theologians today saying, “God saves as many people as He possibly can.” How many people can God save? How many people does He have the power to save? If He is really God, He has the power to save all of them. How many people does He have the authority to save? Cannot God intervene in anyone’s life, just as He did in Moses’ life, Abraham’s life, or the apostle Paul’s life, to bring them into a saving relationship with Him? He certainly has the right to do that.
We cannot deny that the Bible speaks about Jesus dying for “the world.” John 3:16 is the premier example of a verse that uses this language. But there is a counterbalancing perspective in the New Testament, including John’s Gospel, that tells us Jesus laid down His life not for everyone but for His sheep. Here in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks about His sheep as those whom the Father has given Him.
In John 6, we see that Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (v. 44a), and the word translated as “draws” properly means “compels.” Jesus also said in that chapter, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (v. 37a). His point was that everyone whom the Father designed to come to His Son would come, and no one else. Thus, your salvation, from start to finish, rests on the sovereign decree of God, who decided, in His grace, to have mercy on you, not because of anything He saw in you that demanded it, but for the love of the Son. The only reason I can give under heaven why I’m a Christian is because I’m a gift of the Father to the Son, not because of anything I’ve ever done or could do.
Dr. Sam Storms, Lead Pastor at Bridgeway Church, Oklahoma City, OK, teaches a seven part series on the doctrine known as the Perseverance of the Saints:
1. “How Deep The Father’s Love For Us” – John 6:35-44 & John 10:27-30
2. “So Close, Yet So Very Far Away” – Matthew 7:15-23; 12:22-32 & 13:1-9, 18-23
3. “The Dangers of Fickle Faith” – John 15:1–6
4. “The Logic of Love” – Romans 5:6–11
5. “Inseparable: Now and Forever” – Romans 8:1
6. “God Will Sustain You to the End!” – 1 Corinthians 1:4–9
7. “Test Yourselves!”, Hebrews 6:4-12 & 2 Cor. 13:5
Does the spiritual inability of man consist of the loss of his free will, Ph.D, D.D.
This question should be answered in different ways. If by “free will” one means the spontaneity that the soul works from itself without compulsion, this characteristic is inseparably connected with the concept of will. An unfree, enslaved will, then, is a contradictio in adjecto, something that never has existed and never can exist.
If, however, by “free will” one means the abstract possibility that the will of man turns from good to evil or from evil to good, then this liberum arbitrium existed before the fall but no longer after the fall. This is also what theologians meant when they listed the loss of the liberum arbitrium as one of the consequences of sin. Man did possess the capacity to make evil from good, but not the capacity to make good again from evil. The latter, the bringing about of something good as well as the abolishing of something evil, is the exclusive prerogative of the omnipotence of God. And inasmuch as now, after his fall, man must always do evil contrary to the testimony of his conscience, and sin hinders the development and free movement of all his powers, one may speak in this sense, too, of a lack of freedom and bondage in which he exists as sinner.
How can you prove this teaching of the inability of man for doing spiritual good?
It is proven:
a) From the fact that Scripture nowhere ascribes to fallen man any capacity to do good of himself.
b) From the express declaration of Scripture that the opposite is the case. Compare John 15:4, 5; 6:44; Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14.
c) From the form in which Scripture presents to us the doctrine of original sin. In this connection two features especially must be noted. The natural condition of sinful man is portrayed as a condition of death and as a fleshly condition. The point of comparison in both of these images includes the utter inability for spiritual good. As little as a dead person can stir or lifeless flesh can achieve an expression of life, just so little can the natural man do what is good toward God.
d) From the explanation of Scripture that man is not only negatively dead toward God and fleshly passive but also, moreover, that in this death lurks a principle of development and of hostility against God. Man, therefore, is not shackled in total inability by a single bond, but by two bonds.
e) From the necessity that the favor and fellowship of God are indispensable for man if he will produce spiritual good. As long as the wrath of God rests on him, nothing in his life can prosper. The consciousness of the judgment under which he lies, without having yet reckoned with other things, cuts off every good deed at the root.
f) From the necessity of the immediate working of grace by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. This is the other side of what was said under c). Everywhere the Holy Spirit is presented as the one who awakes life and the source of life. Nowhere in Scripture does the human soul appear as a self-changing subject, but always as an object that becomes changed from the outside by affecting grace. Hence there is spoken of a new birth, a new creation, a resurrection from the dead.
g) From the experience of the children of God. None will assert that he is capable of doing what the law demands of him. The awareness of guilt of an awakened sinner also includes, among other things, the conviction that he is bound by sin and cannot save himself. This sense of helplessness is precisely the characteristic of true repentance. Inasmuch, then, as the latter is nothing other than a coming to be aware of the real condition of man, we can infer from it that this in fact is a condition of inability.
Which objections have been advanced against this doctrine of total inability? Continue reading
What convinced me that reformed theology was correct was not the logical arguments I heard (as good as they were), nor the fact that the vast majority of the church’s great Bible scholars through the centuries believed and propagated it (as impressive as that is). What convinced me was the clear teaching of Holy Scripture.
Having read many counter positions on passages such as John 6, Ephesians 1, and Romans 8 and 9, I was amazed at what people needed to do to try to avoid the clear teaching of the passages. They could not just stay in the same passage and work through the verses one by one, allowing the writer to flow from one thought to the next. Instead, they had to argue that the writers were at one point talking about one thing and then in the next verse or even in the middle of the same verse, were speaking about something completely different. It was hard to follow, but not because of what the text said, but, as I came to understand it, because of the elaborate methodology being implemented to avoid what the text was actually saying. They (“they” being those who opposed reformed theology) would say that in one phrase he is referring to “nations” while in another he is referring to specific individuals, and then in the very next verse it referred to something else. Even if this was the case, what are “nations” but a large group of individual people? The “problem” they had of a Sovereign God choosing people for salvation does not go away. God still does this if he chooses one nation and not another. If God chose one nation, he is choosing individual people who make up that nation, and is therefore by this act, also not choosing other people. As I say, the “problem” does not go away.
In contrast to this, when the Scripture writer is allowed to “speak for himself” as to what he means, by simply taking his words, in context, allowing the words to flow from one statement to the next in the passage as he addresses his overall theme, a consistent correct interpretation emerges. This became so very clear to me. I am reformed in soteriology (the study of salvation) because, bottom line, this is what I believe Scripture teaches.
On these issues, I used to have my feet firmly planted in mid air. What I mean by that is that I just didn’t know where I stood on these things. Not only did I not know, I thought it was a display of humility to say so. Now, it WOULD be humble IF the Scripture was vague, elusive and impossible to understand on these things. Some things are clearer than others in holy Scripture. But when God has made His truth clear, it is actually the height of arrogance to say otherwise. Because there is a God and because He has revealed His existence to every man (as Romans 1 teaches) it is arrogance to be agnostic on the question of God’s existence. It would be like standing in God’s face and saying “You did not make this clear at all.” In the same way, I believe God has addressed the issue of His Sovereignty in the matter of salvation in passages such as Romans 9 and that His truth is clearly revealed here.
One of the men of God who helped me (under God) to see this, is a man who became my friend in this whole process, the man in these youtube videos below, Dr. James White. How thankful I am now to be able to see (although much mystery remains) something of the stunning and majestic glory of God in the Sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners.
From Great Falls in Montana, Dr. James White teaches on God’s Sovereignty and the ministry of apologetics and evangelism (approx. 53 minutes).
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” – Acts 13:48
Here (below) is Dr. James White speaking for approximately 55 minutes in Great Falls, Montana, on the Romans 9 passage. I recommend it highly.
In his concluding message from Great Falls, Montana, Dr. James White expounds the sixth chapter of John’s gospel. Jesus’ words, heard here in their context and in progression, proclaim much the same revelation as Paul’s words in Romans 8 and 9. God is truly Sovereign in the matter of salvation. (Approx. 46 minutes youtube video below)
Back in 2009, Dr. James White taught a three part seminar on the doctrines of Grace in St. Charles. The youtube videos still have much relevance to us now.
Part 1 – Objections:
Part 2 – The Concept of Middle Knowledge and the Divine Decree
James writes: My cameras (both of them) simply refused to go back one hour and 3 minutes or so on this trip, so yes, it stops right in the middle of something, but hey, that’s why you should be there live! 🙂
Part 3 – “So I tried by old and trusty little Casio for Saturday morning…still only managed about an hour.”