Limited Atonement

In his book Our Sovereign Savior, Roger Nicole explains the main teachings of the Reformed Faith. Chapter 5 of the book concerns the subject of “Particular Redemption.”

Here are a few of the good points he makes:

* When it comes to the debate surrounding “limited atonement” the value of the death of Christ is not in question. There are no limits to the value of Christ’s death: it is sufficient to save anyone and everyone who trusts in Christ.

* The death of Christ blesses everyone in human history and creation at large. There is no limit to the extent of these blessings which are often referred to as “common grace.”

* If a person doesn’t believe that the atonement of Christ is limited only to effectually saving the elect then a that person is only left with one theological option: universal salvation of all people.

* The real issue is the design or intent of the Father when he sent his Son to die on the cross and purchase redemption for sinners.

* Since all sinners do not get saved then there is either a limit in the effectiveness of the atonement or a limit in its intent. Was God doing something to save all sinners and failed? Or was God purchasing the salvation of the elect and succeeded? Historical, orthodox Christianity teaches that God had a limited intent designed for the atonement of Christ: Christ was to die for and purchase and secure the salvation of the elect. The Cross was absolutely successful in accomplishing the particular intent for which it was designed.

* Lorraine Boettner compared this matter to two bridges: (1) one is a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the water, and (2) the other is a very wide bridge that doesn’t go all the way across the water. What good is the second bridge? It is as good as a theology that teaches the atonement was for all sinners but didn’t actually save any.

* The term “redemption” refers to the payment of the full price to purchase a sinners salvation. If the atonement didn’t actually pay the full price and didn’t actually redeem sinners then what good is it?

* The term “propitiation” refers to the atonements satisfying effects upon God’s wrath. If the death of Christ was a propitiation for all sinners then why is God still angry with sinners?

* The term “reconciliation” refers to the healing of a relationship. Since sinners are still considered enemies of God then what good was the atonement?

* The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ died as a substitute for sinners upon the cross, suffering the wrath of God on their behalf. Biblical theology refers to this as the “penal, substitutionary atonement” and “federal headship.” Federal headship refers to the fact that Christ lived and died as our representative before God.

* The doctrine of “universal atonement” teaches that the death of Christ was for all everyone but didn’t actually save anyone. Therefore “universal atonement” completely undermines the biblical definitions of redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, substitution, and federal representation.

* Universal Atonement proponents are forced to defend the concept of the Father electing some sinners; but Jesus wanted to die for all sinners; but the Holy Spirit sides with the Father and against the Son and only saves some sinners.

* May no one ever think that definite atonement prevents anybody from coming, harms anyone or takes from anybody anything that belongs to him or her. On the contrary, definite atonement is a doctrine which shows a finished, accomplished salvation.

HT: Jason Robertson

What Is True Saving Faith?

Pastor John, could you explain to me what true saving faith looks like? I think the New Testament shows us that there is a false kind of faith that can look like the real thing, but is a flawed and deceptive substitute. Am I right?

Thanks for your question. Yes, indeed you are right.

The Apostle Paul’s main theme in the book of Romans is that of the Gospel itself, as he answers the question, “how can an unjust person ever be acceptable to a just and holy God?” In passages such as Chapter 3:20 – 4:8, he teaches that we are justified by faith alone and not by anything that we do (other passages where Paul states this are Titus 3:5; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9; Phil 3:9; to name just a few).

Romans 3:28; 4:3-8 – “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Having established the case biblically that we are justified by faith apart from works, we then need to ask the question, “what kind of faith is it that justifies?” In other words, what does true faith look like?

This is precisely the issue that James is addressing in chapter 2 of his epistle. He writes in verse 14, “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him?”

The obvious answer to James’ question is “no, that is not the kind of faith that saves. True faith will produce works.”

It is never enough just to make the claim to have faith. No one is ever saved by a mere empty profession of faith. What is professed must actually be possessed for justification to exist. James teaches us clearly that if genuine faith is present, it necessarily produces the fruit of works. That’s the nature of true faith. In fact, if works do not follow from “faith,” then it is proof positive that the “faith” is not in fact genuine, but a mere claim to it.

There is no discord between what James writes and what we find in Romans and the rest of Paul’s writings. Faith without works is dead, and a dead faith never saved anyone. True faith is a living faith, and will inevitably show itself with accompanying action or works. Yet even if all these good works do come from genuine faith, these works still have no part in the ground of our justification. Our works add no merit to us, removing all grounds for boasting. “For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works so that no one should boast” (Eph 2:8, 9).

The only work that contributes to our justification is the work of Jesus; not the work of Jesus in us, but the work of Jesus for us. His merit is the only merit that counts for us. Paul tells us that it we are justified by faith apart from works, and James tells us that that kind of faith that actually saves is a faith that will of necessity produce works.

The Reformers of the 16th Century were very clear about all this. They described true saving faith as having three parts to it, which were described by three Latin words: notitia, assensus and fiducia.
Continue reading

19 Weeks

“How does it make any moral or legal sense to take heroic measures to do surgery on a 19 week old fetus while at the same time allowing the abortion of a perfectly normal 19 week old fetus? The only difference between the one and the other is that one has a mother that wants him and the other doesn’t. This inconsistency doesn’t even bear the lightest scrutiny, yet it is one that is plain to anyone who has eyes to see.” – Denny Burk