Limited Atonement

The death of the Passover Lamb is typological of the death of Christ (Matthew 17:19, 26:28). The Passover Lamb was sacrificed for God's chosen people, not for the Egyptians who were not chosen (Exodus 12). Consider three things:

(1) Who the Passover Lamb was sacrificed for is inseparably connected to who God chose. God chose to redeem a people in Christ. The intent and efficacy of the atonement is in virtue of the Covenant of Redemption: The Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

(2) Unbelieving Egyptians could partake of the Passover Lamb, as there was no deficiency in the sacrifice itself to exclude the Egyptians from partaking of the Passover Lamb. The sufficiency of the atonement is in virtue of the dignity of the Sacrifice. The atonement is infinite in value (sufficient for all) because Christ suffered as the Divine-human person.

(3) Adam did not sin a certain amount for one person, a certain amount for another person, and would have needed to sin more if more sinners were to be condemned in him. Similarly, how many people Christ died for is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the atonement. If Christ died for everyone, for one thousand people, or for only one person, the same Sacrifice of infinite value would be necessary.

The atonement is sufficient for everyone in virtue of who Christ is: for this reason we can say that whosoever trusts in Christ alone will be saved.  The atonement is intended for and efficient for only the elect in virtue of who God chose to redeem in Christ, who willingly took the place of those God chose. Limited Atonement means that the atonement was only intended for and is only applied to the elect. Christ’s atonement rendered certain the salvation of those the Father had given Him. Christ secured the salvation of the elect by His redemptive work, to be applied by the Holy Spirit.

© Jonathan Williams, March 2012.

Supralapsarianism and the Covenant of Redemption

What is Supralapsarianism?

The definition of supralapsarianism changed significantly during the time of Theodore Beza. With Beza, the question of lapsarianism came to regard the logical order of the decrees of God. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians affirm that God freely ordained whatsoever comes to pass before anything was physically created – such doctrines are not debated.

What then is the lapsarian debate about? To quote Loraine Boettner, “When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?”

If you answered that question from Boettner by saying “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence men were considered unfallen”, or “the objects of these decrees were contemplated merely as men whom God would create”, then you are a supralapsarian. In the supralapsarian scheme, God decreed to elect some creatable men logically before He decreed the fall; supralapsarians believe that God’s decree of election logically preceded God’s decree of the fall.

The Covenant of Redemption:

The Covenant of Redemption is the intra-Trinitarian agreement between Father and the Son that occurred before the foundation of the world. The Covenant of Redemption is the agreement where the Father would give the Son as the head and redeemer of the elect, and the Son would voluntarily substitute for those whom the Father had given Him. God the Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

This is echoed in Chapter 8:1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”

The Covenant of Redemption is likewise affirmed in Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

How this Relates to Lapsarianism:

What does this have to do with lapsarianism? Calvinists on every side are probably thinking “I agree with everything you said above Jonathan. What is your point?”

Election and redemption are thoroughly covenantal, being grounded in the Covenant of Redemption. It is not disputed that in the Covenant of Redemption, the Son volunteered to be the head and redeemer of those the Father chose, to willingly substitute for those whom the Father had given Him.

The Son’s role in the covenant of redemption was to willingly redeem those the Father chose to give Him. It cannot be disputed that when the decree of redemption came into existence men were considered as fallen.

Lapsarianism and the Trinity:

The above biblical data creates a real problem in the supralapsarian scheme. In the covenant of redemption, the Father would be choosing unfallen people, while the Son would be redeeming fallen people. God the Father would be viewing the elect as unfallen, at the same time that God the Son is viewing the elect that He will save as fallen. In supralapsarianism, the Father gives the Son unfallen people to redeem, while the Son substitutes for the fallen people that God gave Him. The supralapsarian conception of the covenant of redemption has the Father electing unfallen people, while the Son is viewing those God gave Him to redeem as fallen.

As I outlined above, the supralapsarian scheme creates an impossible disharmony within the Trinity (God is one in essence), which would be further intensified if I also discussed the Holy Spirit (applies redemption). Supralapsarianism logically necessitates either a rejection of the Trinity, or a rejection of the covenant of redemption (actually, rejecting the Trinitarian nature of redemption completely). The simple solution to this is to reject supralapsarianism, and agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort instead.

The Reformed Confessions:

Chapter 3:7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.”

‘The rest of mankind’ are not ‘the rest of possible men’; they are ‘the rest of those human beings who constituted mankind’. According to the WCF, ‘the rest of mankind’ were ‘ordained to dishonour’ ‘for their sin’, which necessitates that mankind was contemplated as fallen “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence.”

People often say “Dort was explicitly not supralapsarianism, but it does not alter Calvinism”. As I have shown in this article, supralapsarianism does alter Calvinism. Earlier in this article, I quoted Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort, but omitted the sentences that explicitly countered the supralapsarian view.

The article states, “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

The Canons of Dort make two similar affirmations: (1) That God chose “from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation” (2) “This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.” The twin affirmations that ‘God chose people to redemption in Christ’ and that ‘God decreed to give people to Christ to be saved by Him’ rely on the affirmations that “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence, men were considered as fallen.” Such ‘contra-supralapsarianism’ statements are central to the covenantal understanding of election and redemption expressed in Dort.

Conclusion and Application:

In virtue of the Covenant of Redemption, Christians can be assured of God’s promise of salvation. Assurance of Salvation and Perseverance of the Saints are both covenantal and Trinitarian, being grounded (by decree) in the Covenant of Redemption. This is because of the inter-Trinitarian promise; the Father promised the Son that those for whom He substituted for will be given to Him by the Father. The Father promised the Son the elect in the Covenant of Redemption.

If you are a Christian, you can Christocentrically rest assured that God the Son redeemed you as your substitute. You belong to the Son, and because the Father will be faithful to His covenant promise to the Son to give the elect to Him, you will persevere to the end in Christ. We should be joyously awaiting going into everlasting life and receiving that fullness of joy in fellowship with Christ our redeemer, which should spur us to love, enjoy and serve Him. The Covenant of Redemption is the decreetive foundation to Christian hope and joy.

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Loraine Boettner on Common Grace

The Argument:

Earlier this week, I received an email from a person claiming that Loraine Boettner rejected common grace. He claimed that Boettner’s rejection of common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ proves that Common Grace is not Reformed.

He clearly did not read ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ very carefully. The exact phrase ‘common grace’ appears no less than seventeen times in Boettner’s book, and always in the affirmative. There is even a heading affirmatively titled ‘Common Grace’, under the chapter on ‘Efficacious Grace’. To demonstrate the indisputable fact that Boettner embraced common grace, I have typed a run-down of his usage of the exact phase. An extensive treatment of Boettner’s affirmation of common grace is beyond the scope of this post.

Explicit Statements in Earlier Chapters:

“The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus.” – Boettner (page 47)

“God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.” – Boettner (page 109)

“Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase ‘Limited Redemption’ rather than ‘Limited Atonement.’ The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption.” – Boettner (page 110)

‘Common Grace’ – Boettner (page 124, 131)

“Apart from this special grace which issues in the salvation of its objects, there is what we may call ‘common grace,’ or general influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. He sends fruitful seasons and gives many things which make for the general happiness of mankind. Among the most common blessings which are to be traced to this source we may name health, material prosperity, general intelligence, talents for art, music, oratory, literature, architecture, commerce, inventions, etc. In many instances the non-elect receive these blessings in greater abundance than do the elect, for we often find that the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light. Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of the truth upon the heart and conscience is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead to salvation, but it keeps this earth from becoming a hell. It arrests the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the fury of wild beasts. It prevents sin from being manifested in all its hideousness, and thus hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the smoking fire. Like the pressure of the atmosphere, it is universal and powerful though unfelt.

Common grace, however, does not kill the core of sin, and therefore it is not capable of producing a genuine conversion. Through the light of nature, the workings of conscience, and especially through the external presentation of the Gospel it makes known to man what he should do, but does not give that power which man stands in need of. Furthermore, all of these common influences of the Holy Spirit are capable of being resisted. The Scriptures constantly teach that the Gospel becomes effectual only when it is attended by the special illuminating power of the Spirit, and that without this power it is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness. Hence the unregenerate man can never know God except in an outward way; and for this reason the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is declared to be just no righteousness at all. Jesus said to His disciples that the world could not receive the Spirit of truth, ‘for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;’ yet in the same breath He added, ‘Ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you,’ John 14:17. The Arminian doctrine destroys the distinction between efficacious and common grace, or at best makes efficacious grace to be an assistance without which salvation is impossible, while the Calvinistic makes it to be an assistance by which salvation is made certain.” – Boettner (page 131-132)

“Concerning the reformations which are produced by common grace Dr. Charles Hodge says” and “The following paragraph by Dr. S. G. Craig very clearly sets forth the limitations of common grace” – Boettner (page 132)

Explicit Statements in Latter Chapters:

“There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race who is not treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And since grace is favor shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another. ‘The bestowment of common grace upon the non-elect,’ says W. G. T. Shedd, ‘shows that non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation to believe and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help that is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by anything in the nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of God. The fault or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the sinner alone; and he has no right to plead afault of his own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace’.

If it be objected that God must give every man an opportunity to be saved, we reply that the outward call does give every man who hears it an opportunity to be saved. The message is: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ This is an opportunity to be saved; and nothing outside the man's own nature prevents his believing. Shedd has expressed this idea very well in the following words: ‘A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of God's passing him by in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, 'Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now try again, and try harder.'” – Boettner (page 192-193)

‘Calvinism and Education’:

In diametric opposition to the indefensible claim that Boettner rejected common grace, Boettner’s views on Christian Education are thoroughly rooted in and shaped by common grace:

“The relationship which Calvinism bears to education has been well stated in the two following paragraphs by Prof. H. H. Meeter, of Calvin College: ‘Science and art were the gifts of God's common grace, and were to be used and developed as such. Nature was looked upon as God's handiwork, the embodiment of His ideas, in its pure form the reflection of His virtues. God was the unifying thought of all science, since all was the unfolding of His plan. But along with such theoretical reasons there are very practical reasons why the Calvinist has always been intensely interested in education, and why grade schools for children as well as schools of higher learning sprang up side by side with Calvinistic churches, and why Calvinists were in so large measure the vanguard of the modern universal education movement.” – Boettner (page 281-282)

Conclusion:

Loraine Boettner clearly affirmed common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’, which is the standard text on Calvinism. Hyper Calvinists are welcome to claim John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and John Robbins, none of whom have views that are Biblical or Reformed.

I will finish with a quote from John Calvin: “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 3:3). Both Loraine Boettner and John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

©Jonathan Williams, February 2011.

Protestantism and Roman Catholicism: Part 2 of 3

1)      An Introduction

This is only a very brief comparison of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Importantly, Christianity is NOT a coin with two legitimate sides to one common faith. The disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not peripheral - rather they encompass the crux of the gospel. Stated bluntly, Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are unregenerate, while Protestants believe that Roman Catholics are unregenerate. In light of Galatians 1:8-9, Protestants are right (c.f. Ephesians 2:8-9)

When I refer to Protestantism, I use the creeds of the Reformation as the standard; for example, while many Protestants reject infant baptism, the Reformation creeds affirm it; therefore, it is the stance of Protestantism. For Roman Catholicism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent are the standards I used. A denial of a more minor aspect of Protestantism does NOT deem someone unregenerate. I denote which teachings are damnable.

2)      Ecclesiology

It may seem tedious initially, but I must start with ecclesiology. Roman Catholics CLAIM that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ with the Apostle Paul being given “the keys to the kingdom”. Roman Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope and by Divine Institution a succession of Popes will have authority over the entire church until the return of Christ[i]. Protestants reject the Papacy, which to us has no more validity than the hierarchy of the Taliban.

Catholics and Protestants have DIFFERENT definitions of ‘church’. While Roman Catholics define the church as the visible church of Rome worldwide, Protestants distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church is the community of those who profess faith and their children, while the invisible church refers to all of God’s elect (every person chosen by God before the foundation of the world across all time) or the worldwide totality of those who currently believe. However, the visible and invisible church are not two separate churches, but two aspects of the one church of Jesus Christ.

I will evaluate two verses on this topic:

1 John 2:19-20 states “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know”.

John is discussing people who seemed to genuinely profess faith, but then ceased fellowship. John remarks that “they were not really of us” – that is they were never genuine members of the invisible church: they never believed and were never In Christ: they were members of the visible church, but never members of the invisible church.

These people were never true Christians, as true Christians cannot apostatize “if they had been of us, they would have remained with us”; their departure from the visible church empirically proved that they were never true Christians “they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us”. The true church is not only visible but internally SPIRITUAL, as the Holy Spirit is what secures true believers against apostasy “But you have an anointing from the Holy One”.

Romans 9:6 states “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”.

Paul differentiated between the invisible and visible church in the context of explaining why the majority of the Old Covenant Jews rejected Christ. In the broader context, “the ordo salutis” of Romans 8:29-30 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” notes that salvation is completely of the Lord: God ALONE predestines, efficaciously calls, justifies and glorifies those exact people He foreknows. The Greek word for foreknew means “to know beforehand" "fore-love" or "fore-appoint"; in Romans 8, Paul is saying the salvation of believers is rooted in God’s eternal, electing love “If God is for us, who can be against us?”

In Romans 9 Paul answers the question “How can the apostasy of Jews be explained if election is rooted in the eternal love of God?” The Old Covenant Jews partook in the sacraments (circumcision and Passover), and even lived in a theocracy, but Paul explains that the nationalistic Israel is not the TRUE SPIRITUAL Israel whom Paul is talking about in Romans 8, and later in Romans 9; it is the TRUE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL to whom God’s electing love is directed. Nationalistic Israel was the visible church, most of whom did not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19), but within nationalistic Israel, there was the true Israel: the invisible church, just as within our visible congregations, there is a mixture of non-believers (visible church) and the believers (the True Spiritual Israel).

The Invisible Church is ‘Abraham’s seed’ (Gal 3:26-29) and ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16); both Jews and Gentiles scattered worldwide (remember that the covenant promises to Abraham included children, in an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:1-14), and under the theocracy of Israel, infants were likewise circumcised). “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit”. Romans 2:28-29, clearly distinguishes between the outward visible church (who partake in the sacrament of circumcision[ii]) and the inward invisible church (who are circumcised inwardly by the Holy Spirit).

Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, born at the same time, to the same parents in the same location: they were “womb mates” (thanks R.C. Sproul). Although both womb mates were circumcised as they belonged to the visible church, Esau was NOT part of the invisible church. In Romans 9:13 God said “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”: a person does not belong to the true Spiritual Israel because of flesh/nationality (verse 8), a person belongs because of "God's purpose according to His choice... because of Him who calls" (verse 11). 

Scripture distinguishes between the visible church and the invisible church; the true church is not an organisation, but a royal priesthood consisting of God’s chosen people: 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION”.

In part one (my previous post), I showed how the Roman Catholic ecclesiology is illogical (with a lot of illogical satire). Here in part two, I provided an exegesis of key Biblical passages to prove Protestant ecclesiology is Biblical, which will provide the avenue for me to in part three conclude this series by Biblically detailing "The Five Solas of the Reformation"

(C), J. Williams, June 2011

[i] Roman Catholics, like Historic Protestants (me) believe in amillennialism. This includes the belief that there will be one coming of Christ, NOT two comings separated by a literal millennial kingdom.

[ii] Circumcision was replaced with baptism as the sign and seal of God’s covenant promise (see Acts 2). Circumcision was a bloody sacrament whereas baptism is a no-bloody sacrament.

---

The 10 Step Guide to Defeating the Cult of Calvin **sarcasm**

1)      Ensure that you bring up John Calvin as soon as possible. It is a great idea to get the audience on your side early, and what better way than accusing the opposition of “worshipping a man”. Bring up John Calvin before the Calvinist does. The debate becomes too theological if the Calvinist quotes Calvin theologically.

2)      Remember to... filter all of God’s attributes through His attribute of love. Keep the other attributes of God a secret. Remember to never let the Bible dictate your definition of God’s love: Christians can certainly learn a lot about love form Brangelina. Rob Bell’s new book “Love Wins” will help you here.

3)      When the Calvinist posts Bible verses, don’t fret… yet. Sometimes silence is good, therefore there can be nothing wrong with arguing from silence. If a verse makes you feel uneasy, it does not have to be true for you. “Doctrine divides” is a good slogan here: the alliteration makes it catchy too, which makes Christianity “hip and happening”.

4)      When occasions arise where the Holy Spirit used the wrong word, make sure you make this known. For example, Paul really meant “post-destination” rather than “predestination”, and “called” actually means that God shouted out and pleaded.  To avoid these words, it can be handy to pick up a children’s Bible or a paraphrase. Too much effort to flip the pages? Your personal experience will do fine!

5)      Always argue from emotion, try to avoid the Bible – even though “free will is all over the Bible”. After all we are to love God with our “…heart…”. “That wouldn’t be just”; “God would not predestine innocent babies to hell” and “God is not a tyrant” are some good lines for the modern man. They would bring a tear to Joel Osteen’s eye.

6)      Never study Genevan Politics. A wise man once said “what you don’t know can’t harm you”. If you make the error of studying Genevan Politics, it will be at your own peril. You will soon discover that John Calvin did not have the authority to order the execution of Servetus. Nonetheless, “Calvin is a murderer” is our best defence: ad hominen, guilt by association, ad nauseam and red herring in four words. Nice! Use this point as much as possible.

7)      Remember “no Bible student goes anywhere without a pen”. No! Not to take notes! Some parts of the Bible are quite confronting. The permanent marker works wonders in crossing out passages that you don’t like or cannot twist to refer to nationalistic Israel. With the strike of a pen you too can remove John 1:12-13 and Ephesians 2:8-9 from your Bible!

8)       It uses a lot of ink to remove whole chapters from Scripture such as John 6, Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. It is best to glue these pages together, or insert corrections: “I will draw all men to myself” clarifies John 6, and the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts forgot to add “just kidding” after “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”.

9)      Remember to quote Dave Hunt. Let me correct that: never partake in an argument that does not quote Dave Hunt. This gives more ammunition to our emotional reasoning. When the Calvinist replies with verses, or by using the ‘c word’ (context) you must remember to keep accusing the Calvinist of worshipping men, despite the fact they have not yet quoted any.

10)   By this stage the Calvinist is becoming way too doctrinal. They are even using logic! Venomously defend the fact that “every person without exception from Judea and Jerusalem was baptised in Jordan”…I mean “that Christ died for all the sins of all people without exception: including unbelief”. Do not take no…I mean context for an answer! Always remember to finish with “well I guess God predestined me to oppose the cult of Calvin”. If the Calvinist replies with any more verses, keep repeating John 3:16!

(C), J. Williams, 2011.