Looking for insight on - What is Reformed Theology? by R.C. Sproul

[JonC]

The axiom "words mean things" applies here. R.C. Sproul is not saying that faith is a salvific work on the part of the one exercising it. What he is saying is that faith, which is essential in the efficacious application of the atonement, is in itself a work. It is a work of the Spirit, not a work of man. "Work" can be interpreted as a thing someone does. In this case faith is not a meritorious work on the part of the one exercising it.

I guess what I am not reading in this particular book is that faith is essential in the efficacious application of the atonement. Perhaps the author implies the essential nature of faith (i.e., we are justified by grace through faith), but through this chapter I gathered that his position was otherwise (the atonement is efficacious apart from anything, including faith). But again, it may well be a misunderstanding on my part of his position.

 

[Reformed]

So it is required in order to get saved by grace of god, but since he supplies it, its still considered to be His work on our behalf?

Yes. It is a work we do only to the extent that it is a thing we do (exercise faith), but it is not a meritorious work. It has to be carefully phrased this way or else it gives the impression that our salvation is of works.

 

[Reformed]

I guess what I am not reading in this particular book is that faith is essential in the efficacious application of the atonement. Perhaps the author implies the essential nature of faith (i.e., we are justified by grace through faith), but through this chapter I gathered that his position was otherwise (the atonement is efficacious apart from anything, including faith). But again, it may well be a misunderstanding on my part of his position.

Jon, I think it is a misunderstanding. The atonement is basically a payment for sin. It is incapable of saving unless it is applied. The vehicle by which it is applied is saving faith.

 

[Van]

Why not drop the word atonement with its Calvinist baggage, and adopt reconciliation. Thus the finished work of the cross provided reconciliation to all, i.e. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, and receiving that reconciliation through faith in the truth.

 

[JonC]

Why not drop the word atonement with its Calvinist baggage, and adopt reconciliation. Thus the finished work of the cross provided reconciliation to all, i.e. Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, and receiving that reconciliation through faith in the truth.

In Scripture the word atonement does not mean reconciliation. So I guess it would be dependent on what doctrine you were speaking of. In Calvinism, I think that redemption better suits the definition often provided in regards to “limited atonement.” The reason is that sins are atoned for, but people are redeemed. On the topic of Sproul’s comments – he was speaking specifically of Christ’s atoning work in isolation – (a payment for debt but not necessarily that payment applied). The farthest that I am comfortable in limiting the scope of the Atonement is in its redemptive purpose (not targeting who’s sins were paid apart from redemption, but who is actually redeemed).

 

[The Biblicist]

I guess what I am not reading in this particular book is that faith is essential in the efficacious application of the atonement. Perhaps the author implies the essential nature of faith (i.e., we are justified by grace through faith), but through this chapter I gathered that his position was otherwise (the atonement is efficacious apart from anything, including faith). But again, it may well be a misunderstanding on my part of his position.

Paul says "with the heart" man believeth. Yet the unregenerated heart is not willing to believe as it is in a state of enmity against God. I believe that when the gospel is preached to an elect at the appointed time of salvation that human instrumentality bring the gospel unto the elect in "word only" but at that point the Holy Spirit takes the preached word and empowers it so that it becomes His creative word to speak into existence a new heart(2 Cor. 4:6) or a creative revelation of Jesus Christ as Savior within the elect. Hence, the gospel preached not only is the creative word producing the new heart but is at the very same instance this empowered revelation of the gospel within the elect is the object of faith. Thus with the new heart man believeth unto salvation. Hence, salvation is by creative revelation (Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:15-16; Jn. 17:2-3).

 

[Van]

In Scripture the word atonement does not mean reconciliation. So I guess it would be dependent on what doctrine you were speaking of. In Calvinism, I think that redemption better suits the definition often provided in regards to “limited atonement.” The reason is that sins are atoned for, but people are redeemed. On the topic of Sproul’s comments – he was speaking specifically of Christ’s atoning work in isolation – (a payment for debt but not necessarily that payment applied). The farthest that I am comfortable in limiting the scope of the Atonement is in its redemptive purpose (not targeting who’s sins were paid apart from redemption, but who is actually redeemed).

Hi JonC, you made quite a few statements, many of which seem questionable.

1) Atonement does not mean reconciliation. The NASB uses the word "atonement" in the OT to translate "kaphar" (Strongs H3722.) In the lexicon it says, to make atonement, to make reconciliation.

2) The NASB does not use atonement in the NT. However the KJV uses atonement at Romans 5:11. And the word there in the NASB is reconciliation.

3) So perhaps you might describe in what way atonement in the NT (referring to the finished work of the cross) differs from providing reconciliation to all.

4) We agree that Christ's work on the cross paid the debt or sin burden for anyone spiritually placed in Christ. Those not in Christ still owe their debt of sin, they have not received the reconciliation, which is where scripture teaches the debt is removed, where we are justified.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi JonC, you made quite a few statements, many of which seem questionable.

1) Atonement does not mean reconciliation. The NASB uses the word "atonement" in the OT to translate "kaphar" (Strongs H3722.) In the lexicon it says, to make atonement, to make reconciliation.

2) The NASB does not use atonement in the NT. However the KJV uses atonement at Romans 5:11. And the word there in the NASB is reconciliation.

3) So perhaps you might describe in what way atonement in the NT (referring to the finished work of the cross) differs from providing reconciliation to all.

4) We agree that Christ's work on the cross paid the debt or sin burden for anyone spiritually placed in Christ. Those not in Christ still owe their debt of sin, they have not received the reconciliation, which is where scripture teaches the debt is removed, where we are justified.

God intention in the death of jesus was to recocile back to Himself by that act of atonement a chosen peoples, those whom he selected out to be as His own, preappointed unto eternal life!

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon, I think it is a misunderstanding. The atonement is basically a payment for sin. It is incapable of saving unless it is applied. The vehicle by which it is applied is saving faith.

We differ with PB/Hypers, as they would hold that the payment for sin actually done at Cross/applied there, while we differ with arminians, as they see faith as something in all sinners!

 

[Van]

So Yeshua1, Arminians believe all sinners have saving faith in them? Got ya, right.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, you made quite a few statements, many of which seem questionable.
1) Atonement does not mean reconciliation. The NASB uses the word "atonement" in the OT to translate "kaphar" (Strongs H3722.) In the lexicon it says, to make atonement, to make reconciliation.
2) The NASB does not use atonement in the NT. However the KJV uses atonement at Romans 5:11. And the word there in the NASB is reconciliation.
3) So perhaps you might describe in what way atonement in the NT (referring to the finished work of the cross) differs from providing reconciliation to all.
4) We agree that Christ's work on the cross paid the debt or sin burden for anyone spiritually placed in Christ. Those not in Christ still owe their debt of sin, they have not received the reconciliation, which is where scripture teaches the debt is removed, where we are justified.

Hey Van,

Thanks for your comments, I certainly don’t believe my statement are above question. I put it here for critique, and yours is always welcome. I was inquiring in regards to Sproul’s chapter in a particular book - atonement as justification at Christ’s death apart from faith (not applied, per se, although it seems to me that he offers no other atonement but applied). So I was using this thread to understand his statements.

Anyway, what I mean by atonement not meaning reconciliation is that reconciliation is a result of atonement. Think of it this way, atonement does not mean propitiation or expiation (although both are certainly a vital element of the Atonement). Propitiation is atonement, but it demonstrates the turning of God’s wrath (while expiation is the cancellation of our sins). For example, the atonement reference in Hebrews 2:18 states that Christ became like His brethren so that He might become a faithful high priest to make propitiation for the sins of the people. The NIV translates ἱλάσκομαι with a more general term “make atonement .” The NASB translates it as “propitiation.” F.F. Bruce translates it as “expiate.” ἱλάσκομαι, I believe, literally refers to propitiation.

The idea of reconciliation is a change of relationship towards God (we are reconciled to God). But it is more specific than “atonement.” It would not make since to replace “atonement” with “reconciliation” in the context of Sproul’s text. Christ does not reconcile sin, He reconciles people.

Now, about your point (“begging the question”?) that I might describe in what ways the finished work of the cross differs from providing reconciliation to all. This is at the heart of my question. I do not know that we can speak of the Atonement as anything but a completed work on the cross (to include this atonement applied) without risking a venture into the theoretical - unless you are willing to say that centuries ago my debt was paid and I was born into this world both justified by that payment and reconciled to God (that I never existed unjustified, unreconciled, or in need of a Savior). Anyway, this is not the matter of the OP (I was just trying to understand the statements of another), and it is not how Sproul is discussing limited atonement - but I hope that that clarified my statements. It'd be an interesting thread (although one I'm sure has been debated before).

 

[Van]

Thanks JonC, not very many folks here are actually willing to discuss differing views on anything theological.

As I understand your comments "atonement" refers to reconciliation provided, and reconciliation refers "atonement applied." I drop the atonement and simply have reconciliation provided and reconciliation received.

Before we even think about studying hilasterion and the related words hilaskomai and hilasmos, we must address the three cornerstone words of salvation - propitiation, the means of salvation, redemption, the act of salvation, and reconciliation, the result of salvation. Our word study below enters into the arena of the means of salvation, which is Jesus Christ.

Hilasterion

Our best understanding is that hilasterion referred to the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with blood, and thus referred to as the mercy seat. Articles on its meaning are filled with classic words like expiation, atonement, and propitiation, all of which convey almost nothing to the modern reader. In a nutshell, under the Old Covenant, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the hilasterion on the day of atonement to provide temporary reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin. Under the New Covenant, Jesus, covered with His precious blood, has become our "hilasterion" (and our blood sin offering) as the means of everlasting reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin.

Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.

In short the verb refers to the act of having mercy and the noun to the means of having mercy. Therefore hilasterion should be understood as the means of obtaining mercy , i.e the propitiatory shelter.

The verb appears (hilaskomai) in Hebrews 2:17, thus is translated "make propitiation" and refers to Jesus becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for all mankind. Jesus accomplished this, i.e. providing the means of salvation, by laying down is life as a ransom for all.

 

[Van]

“If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction for this person.”

This statement provides a false choice, i.e. either atonement is effective and can accomplish salvation apart from faith, or faith on our part is a necessary work to accomplish salvation.

But scripture teaches neither view, faith provides access to the saving grace of God. Thus when God credits or reckons our faith as righteousness, that opens the door so to speak such that God then puts us into Christ, into the grace and mercy provided by Christ, thus as Paul said, "...through whom [Christ] also we have obtained our introduction by faith into the grace in which we stand, and we exult in hope of the glory of God. Romans 5:2

 

[Reformed]

We differ with PB/Hypers, as they would hold that the payment for sin actually done at Cross/applied there, while we differ with arminians, as they see faith as something in all sinners!

The payment for sin was accomplished at the cross, but the sin-debt owed by the individual is not canceled until justification takes place.

 

[Yeshua1]

The payment for sin was accomplished at the cross, but the sin-debt owed by the individual is not canceled until justification takes place.

Which happens when the sinner receives jesus and His work done of their behalf thru faith, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

So Yeshua1, Arminians believe all sinners have saving faith in them? Got ya, right.

Do most beieve that faith is a gift from God, or something inherit within us, that we chose to exercise?

 

[JonC]

Do most beieve that faith is a gift from God, or something inherit within us, that we chose to exercise?

Who knows what most believe...but Arminian doctrine teaches that it is of God - not something inherit within us.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who knows what most believe...but Arminian doctrine teaches that it is of God - not something inherit within us.

So would be:

calvinists teach that faith is a gift from God to ONLY those elected to receive eternal life in Christ

arminians that God grants that gift to all, and elects those who choose jesus tosave them

Non cals Gift inherit in all, up to us to freely accept/relect Jesus?

 

[JamesL]

------------ Originally Posted by RC Sproul
“If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction for this person.”-------------


This statement provides a false choice, i.e. either atonement is effective and can accomplish salvation apart from faith, or faith on our part is a necessary work to accomplish salvation.

But scripture teaches neither view, faith provides access to the saving grace of God.....

That's why I said Sproul is not a theologian, he's a philosopher. He's trying to reason in his own mind what scripture never says.

The biggest thing he misses is that scripture teaches a distinction between the spirit and the body - not just at birth and death, but as it relates to sin and righteousness throughout life. BY missing this, it leads to confusion as it relates to Christ's work on the cross and His resurrection.

Our body is sinful on account of Adam because we are from him. Every person ever born came out of Adam. That's why when he sinned, we all came to feel the effects of his sin - physical death. That is the thrust of Romans 5:12-21 and 1Cor 15:20-22

However, our spirit becomes sinful when we turn and go our own way. This is why Paul starts Romans our by saying that we become futile, we become fools, we exchanged the truth for a lie, etc. He was building the case that we are without excuse (Romans 1:18-2:2).

At the end of his treatise on justification, Paul mentions the resurrection of Christ (Romans 4:25). Then he goes into Romans 5 speaking of "having been justified" (v1, 10), and "we shall be saved from wrath through Him" (v9) and "we shall be saved by His life" (v10). That would be resurrection of the body. Why does Romans 5:18 has a ring of universalism to it? Because the resurrection IS universal.

Justification is not the only benefit of Christ's work, a physical resurrection is also reaped. He was the first fruit of resurrection

By confusing the spirit and the body, the work of Christ is misconstrued as being only applicable to believers. But John 5:29 teaches that those who were unrighteous will be raised. If their [bodily] sins weren't paid for, then how can they be raised?

If unbelievers were raised without their body being redeemed, then their body would be completely annihilated by the wrath of God. Their bodies will be raised imperishable just like a believer's body will be, because Jesus paid the debt for all men.

This exactly why Paul wrote that Christ is the savior of all men, especially those who believe (1Tim 4:10).

But only those who receive Him are justified.

Sproul also mistakenly thinks that faith is a action, like God gives us a spiritual water gun at regeneration, then we decide to aim it and shoot.

But faith is utterly passive, when we are fully assured that what God has promised, He is also able to perform (Romans 4:21). Not a work at all. It is conviction and enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. Then we are justified on account of faith

Sproul's philosophical meanderings fail the test of scripture.

 

[Van]

Hi JamesL, thanks for actually presenting your view!

I agree that speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine. Adding to scripture is condemned at least three times in scripture.

I believe as a consequence of Adam's sin we are conceived in iniquity meaning in a spiritually separated from God state. But beyond that we are also corrupted spiritually, thus rather than the corruption being passed to us biologically, it is passed spiritually. Note when the consequence of Adam's sin was applied, both his eyes and Eve's eyes were opened. So the corruption entered Eve after her physical being was created.

Now in Romans 1:21 we see the fact that men who choose not to honor God become men whose lives are pointless, accomplishing nothing of value. Futile. Next, in the same verse, we see that as they continued to turn their back to God, their foolish - unwise - heart was darkened. As we seek the treasures of this world, we become more like the depraved world and less like God, in whom there is no shadow. Finally they not only do what they know is wrong, they encourage others to also do what is wrong.