REDEMPTION (ATONEMENT): US vs THEM [the L of TULIP]

[Iconoclast]

The death Jesus died on the cross Accomplished Redemption.
It actually saved everyone it was intended to save, a great number of people worldwide.
It was a once for all time work never to be repeated.
Jesus came to seek and SAVE His sheep. {not the goats]
He seeks them worldwide from among all men.[the children given by the Father]
He does not try and seek them and fail.
He does not try and save them and fail.
He saves each and every person He was given to save, not one of them is lost.
He saves His sheep.
He saves the children given to Him in the Covenant of Redemption.
That promise is offered and confirmed to men in the Covenant of Grace.
Jn6:37-44, Hebrews2:9-16

 

[Iconoclast]

Chapter 7 Of God’s Covenant
1 The distance between God and the creature is so great,
that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator,
yet they could never have attained the reward of life
but by some a voluntary condescension on God’s part,
which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
( Luk 17:10; Job 35:7-8)
2 Moreover, man having brought himself
under the curse of the law by his fall,
it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,
wherein he freely offereth unto sinners
life and salvation by Jesus Christ,
requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;
and
promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit,
to make them willing and able to believe. ( Gen 2:17; Gal 3:10; Rom 3:20-21; Rom 8:3; Mar 16:15-16; Joh 3:16; Eze 36:26-27; Joh 6:44-45; Psa 110:3)

3 This covenant is revealed in the gospel;first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,
and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;
and it is founded in that *eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever weresaved did obtain life and blessed immortality,
man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. ( Gen 3:15; Heb 1:1; *2Ti 1:9; Ti 1:2; Heb 11:6,13; Rom 4:1-2, etc.; Act 4:12; Joh 8:56)

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast​

Member

• Feb 19, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #4

Particular Redemption (MP3 Series) | Monergism​

by Albert N. MartinTo download an MP3 message, right-click the link and select "Save Target As..." or "Save Link As...".1) Introduction2) The Covenant of
www.monergism.com

Particular Redemption (MP3 Series)​

Sat, 03/24/2012 - 02:08 -- admin

BY ALBERT N. MARTIN​

To download an MP3 message, right-click the link and select "Save Target As..." or "Save Link As...".
1) Introduction
2) The Covenant of Redemption
3) Union With Christ, Part 1
4) Union With Christ, Part 2
5) Christ's Priestly Activity
6) Major Biblical Categories
7) Major Objections to this Doctrine
For over forty years, Pastor Albert N. Martin faithfully served the Lord and His people as an elder of Trinity Baptist Church of Montville, New Jersey. Due to increasing and persistent health problems, he stepped down as one of their pastors, and in June, 2008, Pastor Martin and his wife, Dorothy, relocated to Michigan, where they are seeking the Lordâ??s will regarding future ministry.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast​

Member

• Feb 19, 2023
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #5

Particular Redemption - Matthew 20:28 | Monergism​

by C. H. Spurgeon"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many."—Matthew 20:28.WHEN first it
www.monergism.com

THE DEATH OF DEATH IN THE DEATH OF CHRIST​

JOHN OWEN​

A TREATISE OF THE REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION THAT IS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, WITH THE MERIT THEREOF, AND SATISFACTION WROUGHT THEREBY.

---

marked up by Lance George Marshall
Greek and Hebrew fonts used in this document can be downloaded at BibleWorks

---

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK by J.I. Packer

BOOK I

• Chapter 1: In general of the end of the death of Christ, as it is in the Scripture proposed.
• Chapter 2: Of the nature of an end in general, and some distinctions about it.
• Chapter 3: Of the agent or chief author of the work of our redemption, and of the first thing distinctly ascribed to the person of the Father.
• Chapter 4: Of those things which in the work of redemption are peculiarly ascribed to the person of the Son.
• Chapter 5: The peculiar actions of the Holy Spirit in this business.
• Chapter 6: The means used by the fore-recounted agents in this work.
• Chapter 7: Containing reasons to prove the oblation and intercession of Christ to be one entire means respecting the accomplishment of the same proposed end, and to have the same personal object.
• Chapter 8: Objections against the former proposal answered

BOOK II

• Chapter 1: Some previous considerations to a more particular inquiry after the proper end and effect of the death of Christ.
• Chapter 2: Containing a removal of some mistakes and false assignations of the end of the death of Christ.
• Chapter 3: More particularly of the immediate end of the death of Christ, with the several ways whereby it is designed.
• Chapter 4: Of the distinction of impetration and application -- The use and abuse thereof; with the opinion of the adversaries upon the whole matter in controversy unfolded; and the question on both sides stated.
• Chapter 5: Of application and impetration.

BOOK III

• Chapter 1: Arguments against the universality of redemption-The two first; from the nature of the new covenant, and the dispensation thereof.
• Chapter 2: Containing three other arguments.
• Chapter 3: Containing, two other arguments from the person Christ sustained in this business.
• Chapter 4: Of sanctification, and of the cause of faith, and the procurement thereof by the death of Christ.
• Chapter 5: Being a continuance of arguments from the nature and description of the thing in hand; and first, of redemption.
• Chapter 6: Of the nature of reconciliation, and the argument taken from thence.
• Chapter 7: Of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with arguments from thence.
• Chapter 8: A digression, containing the substance of an occasional conference concerning the satisfaction of Christ.
• Chapter 9: Being a second part of the former digression--Arguments to prove the satisfaction of Christ.
• Chapter 10: Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from thence.
• Chapter 11: The last general argument.

BOOK IV

• Chapter 1: Things previously to be considered, to the solution of objections.
• Chapter 2: An entrance to the answer unto particular arguments.
• Chapter 3: An unfolding of the remaining texts of Scripture produced for the confirmation of the first general argument for universal redemption.
• Chapter 4: Answer to the second general argument for the universality of redemption.
• Chapter 5: The last argument from Scripture answered.
• Chapter 6: An answer to the twentieth chapter of the book entitled, "The Universality of God's Free Grace," etc., being a collection of all the arguments used by th

 

[Iconoclast]

Lose Particular Redemption, Lose Penal Substitution​

Article
08.20.2019
The (assigned!) topic raises a question. Particular redemption receives enough hostile press already. So, is 9Marks overly scholastic in suggesting that the “What?” of the atonement (penal substitution) and the “For whom?” (particular redemption) are inextricably linked?
The 19th century Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell believed so, and therefore in The Nature of the Atonement (1 st edition, 1856) sought to deconstruct and demolish the doctrine of penal substitution. He argued: “That cannot be the true conception of the nature of the atonement which implies that Christ died for an election from among men” (emphasis added).

Our interest here is not to rehearse every argument for particular redemption, but only this question: Assuming penal substitution lies at the heart of the atonement, what bearing does that have on its extent?
One passage will absorb our attention: 2 Corinthians 5:11–21. It is particularly significant because it employs universal language in relation to Christ’s death (“all” vv. 14, 15, and “world” v.19).
Echoing Aquinas, this universal language seems to presuppose an unlimited atonement . But Paul’s reasoning leads to a different conclusion, teaching us, incidentally, that true exposition must lay bare not only the words but the inner logic of the text.
Two dimensions of Paul’s reasoning are significant here:
I: The logic of the accomplishment of reconciliation:

• One died for all (v.14). Here the word translated “for” (huper) carries the sense “instead of, in place of”—i.e. substitution. For these “all” Christ died (v.15) the death which is “the wages [= penalty] of sin” (Rom. 6:23).
• In this way, God was “not counting their (the “all”) trespasses against them” (v.19).
• Instead, he counted their (= the “all”) trespasses against Christ, and also counted his righteousness to them (v.21).
• Thus, God was “reconciling the world (the “all”) to himself” (v.20).

Two implications are relevant:
(i): The “all” whose sins God counted against Christ and whose penalty he bore are those whose sins he does not count. Indeed, he counts Christ’s righteousness to them, thus reconciling them to himself in Christ.
(ii): This reconciliation is both a finished and sufficient work. It is to be received by faith, not completed by it. The sins of the “all” being imputed to Christ (v.21), they are no longer counted against those (the “all”) for whom the atonement has been made. Augustus Montague Toplady’s question is a propos:

Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin,
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

II: The logic of the application of reconciliation:
Paul also develops here the connection between the once-for-all historical accomplishment of reconciliation and its ongoing existential application. Its finished nature secures its ongoing effect. Follow Paul’s logic again.
Verse 14: One died (apethanen) for all; therefore those “all” also died (apethanon).
Notice the force of Paul’s “therefore”:
Negatively, he does not say:
(i): “Since one died for all, therefore all must have been dead” (i.e. in sins, Eph. 2:1).
(ii): “Since one died for all, therefore all must die” (i.e. for their own sins, Rom. 6:23).
(iii): “Since one died for all, therefore all must die” (i.e. “to self”—this is a fruit of Christ’s death, v.15, it is not the meaning of v.14).
Positively , he does say:

• Paul affirms that the “all” for whom Christ died also died in his death (v.14). The repetition in the same context of the same verb (apothnēskō) in the same (aorist) tense implies the reference is to the same event. It is in Christ’s death that “all have died” (cf. the similar aorist of apothnēskō in Romans 6:2 and Colossians 3:3).
• The existential implication is that these “all” “no longer live for themselves” but for Christ “who for their sake died and was raised again” (v.15). Those united to Christ federally enter the new creation in union with him existentially (v.17).

Thus, Paul reasons that all for whom Christ died were so united with him in his death that they also may be said to have both died and been raised in and with him. Penal substitution by Christ and union with Christ are inseparable realities. This is how penal substitution actually works.
This union with Christ here implies a chain of unbreakable links between (i) Christ’s death borne for the sins of the “all”; (ii) the non-imputation of their sins to the “all”; (iii) the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the same “all”; and (iv) the fruit of this in the lives of the “all,” since they died and rose in him. For Paul there is no breach between the historic union with the “all” in Christ’s penal substitution for them and their existential union with him in its benefits
Consider the incoherent implications if this is not so: (i) God did not count sins against the “all” for whom Christ died, but now does count them; (ii) Christ provided actual atonement and reconciliation which now neither atones nor reconciles; (iii) the “all” died in Christ’s death and were raised with him—yet now some of the “all” atoned for can undo those realities, render the atonement ineffective, and un-reconcile themselves although already reconciled in Christ.
Any doctrine of unlimited penal substitution implies the ineffectiveness and disintegration of the objective accomplishment of Christ. At this point the gospel begins to unravel, and our Saviour’s work and glory are demeaned.
It would take us beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the” double jeopardy” implied. But this brief look at 2 Corinthians 5:11–21 is sufficient to confirm the conclusion of Toplady’s “Faith Reviving”:

If thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine:
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

McLeod Campbell’s presupposition was right: penal substitution implies efficacious redemption. Expressed negatively, in terms of this essay’s title: If you lose particular atonement, you must lose penal substitution.
By Sinclair Ferguson

 

[Iconoclast]

The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement

by D. A. Carson,
​

Here I wish to see if the approaches we have been following with respect to the love of God may shed some light on another area connected with the sovereignty of God – the purpose of the Atonement.

The label “limited atonement” is singularly unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is a defensive, restrictive expression: here is atonement, and then someone wants to limit it. The notion of limiting something as glorious as the Atonement is intrinsically offensive. Second, even when inspected more coolly, “limited atonement” is objectively misleading. Every view of the Atonement “limits” it in some way, save for the view of the unqualified universalist. For example, the Arminian limits the Atonement by regarding it as merely potential for everyone; the Calvinist regards the Atonement as definite and effective (i.e., those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved), but limits this effectiveness to the elect; the Amyraldian limits the Atonement in much the same way as they Arminian, even though the undergirding structures are different.

It may be less prejudicial, therefore, to distinguish general atonement and definite atonement, rather than unlimited atonement and limited atonement. The Arminian (and the Amyraldian, whom I shall lump together for the sake of this discussion) holds that the Atonement is general, i.e., sufficient for all, available to all, on condition of faith; the Calvinist holds that the Atonement is definite, i.e., intended by God to be effective for the elect.

At least part of the argument in favor of definite atonement runs as follows. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the truth of election. That is one point where this discussion intersects with what was said in the third chapter about God’s sovereignty and his electing love. In that case the question may be framed in this way: When God sent his Son to the cross, did he think of the effect of the cross with respect to his elect differently from the way he thought of the effect of the cross with respect to all others? If one answers negatively, it is very difficult to see that one is really holding to a doctrine of election at all; if one answers positively, then one has veered toward some notion of definite atonement. The definiteness of the Atonement turns rather more on God’s intent in Christ’s cross work than in the mere extent of its significance.

But the issue is not merely one of logic dependent on election. Those who defend definite atonement cite texts. Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) – not everyone. Christ gave himself “for us,” i.e., for us the people of the new covenant (Tit. 2:14), “to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.” Moreover, in his death Christ did not merely make adequate provision for the elect, but he actually achieved the desired result (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:15-16). The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom “for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 53:10-12). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25).

The Arminian, however, responds that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same.

So how shall we forge ahead? The arguments marshaled on both sides are of course more numerous and more sophisticated than I have indicated in this thumbnail sketch. But recall for a moment the outline I provided in the first chapter on the various ways the Bible speaks about the love of God:
(1) God’s intra-Trinitarian love,
(2) God’s love displayed in his providential care,
(3) God’s yearning warning and invitation to all human beings as he invites and commands them to repent and believe, (4) God’s special love towards the elect, and
(5) God’s conditional love toward his covenant people as he speaks in the language of discipline. I indicated that if you absolutize any one of these ways in which the Bible speaks of the love of God, you will generate a false system that squeezes out other important things the Bible says, thus finally distorting your vision of God.

In this case, if we adopt the fourth of these ways of talking about God’s love (viz. God’s particular and effective love toward the elect), and insist that this is the only way the Bible speaks of the love of God, then definite atonement is exonerated, but at the cost of other texts that do not easily fit into this mold and at the expense of being unable to say that there is any sense in which God displays a loving, yearning, salvific stance toward the whole world. Further, there could then be no sense in which the Atonement is sufficient for all without exception. Alternatively, if you put all your theological eggs into the third basket and think of God’s love exclusively in terms of open invitation to all human beings, one has excluded not only definite atonement as a theological construct, but also a string of passages that, read most naturally, mean that Jesus Christ did die in some special way for his own people and that God with perfect knowledge of the elect saw Christ’s death with respect to the elect in a different way then he saw Christ’s death with respect to everyone else.

 

[Iconoclast]

Surely it is best not to introduce disjunctions where God himself has not introduced them. Of one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. This is in line, then, with passages that speak of God’s love in the third sense listed above. But it is difficult to see why that should rule out the fourth sense in the other passages.
One of my most forceful impressions is that the categories of the debate gradually shift with time so as to force disjunction where a slightly different bit of question-framing would allow synthesis. Correcting this, I suggest, is one of the useful things we may accomplish from an adequate study of the love of God in holy Scripture. For God is a person. Surely it is unsurprising if the love that characterizes him as a person is manifest in a variety of ways toward other persons. But it is always love, for all that.
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only two.
(1) This approach, I content, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” No doubt the question is put to me because I still do a fair bit of evangelism, and people want models. Historically, Reformed theology at its best has never been slow in evangelism. Ask George Whitefield, for instance, or virtually all the main lights in the Southern Baptist Convention until the end of the last century. From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them.
Not for a moment am I suggesting that when one preaches evangelistically, one ought to retreat to passages of the third type (above), holding back on the fourth type until after a person is converted. There is something sleazy about that sort of approach. Certainly it is possible to preach evangelistically when dealing with a passage that explicitly teaches election. Spurgeon did this sort of thing regularly. But I am saying that, provided there is an honest commitment to preaching the whole counsel of God, preachers in the Reformed tradition should not hesitate for an instant to declare the love of God for a lost world, for lost individuals. The Bible’s ways of speaking about the love of God are comprehensive enough not only to permit this but to mandate it.
(2) At the same time, to preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own will. That is surely ground for boasting. This argument does not charge the Arminian with no understanding of grace. After all, the Arminian believes that the cross is the ground of the Christian’s acceptance before God; the choice to believe is not in any sense the ground. Still, this view of grace surely requires the conclusion that the ultimate distinction between the believer and the unbeliever lies, finally, in the human beings themselves. That entails an understanding of grace quite different, and in my view far more limited, than the view that traces the ultimate distinction back to the purposes of God, including his purposes in the cross. The pastoral implications are many and obvious.
D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God

 

[Iconoclast]

John Murray

The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows.

The difference is just this. The Calvinist affirms that God eternally and unchangeably decrees the salvation of certain persons whom He sovereignly distinguishes by this decree from those who are not appointed to salvation. In pursuance of this decree of salvation He decrees the ends towards its accomplishment, and so decrees to give faith and perseverance to all those predestinated to salvation. The Arminian denies any such decree bearing upon the salvation of individuals, and what he affirms in its place is that God decrees or purposes to save all who believe and persevere in faith and obedience to the end. In the former case there is the eternal destination to salvation of persons who are the objects of God’s sovereign election; in the latter case there is the divine purpose to save the class characterized by faith and perseverance. In the ultimate analysis the former is the election of persons, the latter is the election of qualities with the provision that all who exhibit these qualities will be saved.