On Definite Redemption, from the Reformation Study Bible

I know some Reformed Christians who identify themselves as "4-Point Calvinists." The doctrine they have problem with in TULIP? The vast majority of these 4-pointers have a problem with the "L" -- the doctrine of Limited Atonement. This is, for those of you who may not know, is the doctrine of grace that states that Christ died ONLY for the elect-- NOT for the sins of the entire race of man. I have decided to post some thoughts from Sproul and the rest of the team that brought about The Reformation Study Bible. This particular study note is entitled "Definite Redemption" and located in the English Standard Version or the Reformation Study Bible, pg 1530.


Definite Redemption

Definite redemption, also called "particular redemption," or "limited atonement," is the historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without questioning the infinite word of Christ's sacrifice or the genuineness of God's sincere invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that Christ in dying intended to accomplish what he did accomplish: to take away the sins of God's elect, and to ensure that they would all be brought to faith through regeneration and preserved through faith for glory. Christ did not intend to die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.

In discussing the atonement, some say that Christ died for all, and that all without exception will be saved. This is an actual universalism. A second doctrine is that Christ died for all, but that His death has no saving effect without an added faith and repentance not foreseen in His death. In other words, He died for the general purpose of making salvation possible, but the salvation of particular individuals was not included in His death. This is a hypothetical universalism. The third doctrine is that although Christ's death was infinite in value, it was offered to save only some, those who were known beforehand. This is the limited or definite atonement.

Scripture does not teach that all will be saved, ruling out actual universalism. The other two views do not differ about how many will be saved, but about the purpose for which Christ died. Scripture addresses this question. The New Testament teaches that God chose for salvation a great number of the fallen race and sent Christ into the world to save them (John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; 11:51, 52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is said to have died for a particular people, with the clear implication that His death secured their salvation (John 10:15-18, 27-29; Rom. 5:8-10; 8:32; Gal. 2:20; 3:13, 14; 4:4, 5; 1 John 4:9, 10; Rev. 1:4-6; 5:9, 10). Before He died, Christ prayed for those the Father had given Him, and not for the world (John 17:9, 20). Jesus' prayer lifted up those for whom He was going to die, and He promised them that He would not fail to save them. Such passages present the idea of a definite atonement. The Old Testament, with its emphasis on the election of grace, provides strong support.

The free offer of the gospel, and the commandment to preach the good news everywhere, is not inconsistent with the teaching that Christ died for His elect people. All who come to Christ will find mercy (John 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Rom. 1:16; 10:8-13). The gospel offers Christ, who knows His sheep. He died for them; He calls them by name, and they hear Him. This is the gospel that He commanded His disciples to preach in all the world, in order to save sinners.


I hope this was found to be a useful resource. For others of you who may not know why I identify myself as a "Calvinist," you may want to check out the previous post.

And to those who are awaiting the completion of my "sermon" on John 14:6... I PROMISE it IS coming!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Faith + Works of the Law = Severed from Christ (A look @ Galatians 5, its meaning in context, and how the TNIV/NIV muddies the meanings yet again)

Thought Police Strike Again...

Mere Arminianism – Free Will, Predestination, and CS Lewis – Part One