Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
"Scripture Casts Salvation in Trinitarian Language,
w/ the Divine Design and Nature of the Atonement."
"For example, in Galatians 4:4–6, Paul writes,
“But when the fullness of the time came,
God sent forth His Son, born of a woman,
born under the Law,
"so that He might Redeem those who were under the Law,
that we might receive the adoption as sons.
"Because you are sons,
God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
"Paul notes that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit each carry out the work of Redemption
according to Their Divine Persons-Appropriate Roles.
"That is, the Gospel is inherently Trinitarian:
"the Father sends the Son into the world;
"the Son assumes a human nature
so that He might stand in man’s place
and Redeem those who because of their sin
were bound to suffer the curse of the Law (cf. Heb 2:17);
"and the Spirit is then sent to apply to sinners
all of the blessings the Son has accomplished for them,
adoption being what Paul emphasizes here.
"Salvation—the rescue of sinners by means of Atonement
—is inexorably Trinitarian.
"The Trinitarian shape of the Gospel
not only colors how one sees the Atonement conceived generally
but also how one understands The Extent of the Atonement in particular.
"The debate over The Extent of the Atonement
is often cast as a game of proof-text volleyball.
"The one holding to universal atonement argues,
“Paul says Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all!” (1 Tim 2:6).
"The particularist counters, “Well, Jesus says
He gave His life as a ransom for many!” (Mark 10:45).
"And back and forth they go.
"The Particularist aims to explain
why ostensibly universalistic language
ought not to be interpreted as absolutely universal
(i.e., "all of all sorts", "all without exception")
"but rather as indicating "some of all sorts",
"all of some sort", or "all without distinction".
"Advocates of universal atonement
respond that such interpretive moves
do not accord with the plain sense of Scripture,
and both sides furnish a cadre of commentators
supporting their mutually exclusive claims.
"It is at this point that the conversation typically reaches a stalemate
or, worse, gives way to frustration and uncharitable discourse.
"The key to breaking that stalemate is to recognize
that Scripture’s comments on the extent of Christ’s death
must be interpreted in light of its comments on the Design
and the Nature of the Atonement as well.
"The Scope of the Atonement must be understood
in light of both the Substance of the Atonement
(i.e., what the Atonement is)
"and the Scheme of the Atonement
(i.e., what it is Designed to accomplish).6
"If Scripture teaches that Christ’s death
did not merely make Salvation possible
(as in many strains of universal atonement)
"but actually accomplished the Salvation of those for whom He died
(as in Particular Redemption),
"then when confronted with one text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “all” (e.g., 1 Tim 2:6)
"and a virtually identical text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “many” (e.g., Mark 10:45),
"there will be an exegetical basis for interpreting “all” in 1 Timothy 2:6
to mean “all without distinction” rather than “all without exception.”
"The same is true for the Design
—or the Divine Intention—of The Atonement.
"If Scripture teaches that God Intended the Atonement
not merely to Provide a Salvation that could be accepted
or rejected (as in many strains of universal atonement)
"but actually and definitively to Save those
for whom it was Accomplished (as in Particular Redemption),
"then one could not escape the conclusion
that the Atonement extends no further
than to those who partake of its Saving Benefits.
"In both instances, Scripture’s clear teaching
on the Design and Nature of the Atonement
helps interpret the less clear teaching on the Extent of the Atonement.
"This is where The Doctrine of the Trinity
may be brought to bear
on The Doctrine of The Extent of The Atonement.
"In speaking of the Design, or Intent, of the Atonement,
one necessarily speaks of the Designer,
or Intender, of the Atonement,
Who is none other than the Triune God Himself.
"And since the very Nature of God’s Being as Trinity
shapes all God’s acts as Savior,
"one must ask what, if any, implications God’s Triunity has
for the atonement planned by the Father,
accomplished by the Son,
and applied by the Spirit.
"The thesis of this article, then,
is that the unity of the Trinity
is a legitimate exegetical-theological argument
in favor of the doctrine of particular redemption.7
"That is because the Father, Son, and Spirit
are Perfectly United in their Essence,
they must be Perfectly United in both their Saving Intentions
and their Saving Acts.
"What the Father wills
must be what the Son wills,
"and what the Son wills
must be what the Spirit wills.
"Those whom the Father intends to save
must therefore be the same exact number
as those whom the Son intends to save,
"and those whom the Son intends to save
must be the same exact number
as those whom the Spirit intends to save.
"Accordingly, since Scripture teaches
(a) that the Father has Chosen to save a particular people
and not all without exception,
and (b) that the Spirit will Regenerate that same particular people
and not all without exception, therefore it also teaches,
(c) that the Son has Atoned for that same particular people
and not all without exception.
"To say otherwise is to strike at the Unity of the Triune God."
from:
TRIUNE PARTICULARISM:
WHY UNITY IN THE TRINITY
DEMANDS A PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
by Mike Riccardi Ph.D., pg. 160-184.
The Master’s Seminary Associate Professor of Theology,
The Master’s Seminary.
Notes # 6 & # 7, see: pgs. 161-162, at:
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TMSJ-Volume-33-Number-1.pdf#page=160
w/ the Divine Design and Nature of the Atonement."
"For example, in Galatians 4:4–6, Paul writes,
“But when the fullness of the time came,
God sent forth His Son, born of a woman,
born under the Law,
"so that He might Redeem those who were under the Law,
that we might receive the adoption as sons.
"Because you are sons,
God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts,
crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
"Paul notes that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit each carry out the work of Redemption
according to Their Divine Persons-Appropriate Roles.
"That is, the Gospel is inherently Trinitarian:
"the Father sends the Son into the world;
"the Son assumes a human nature
so that He might stand in man’s place
and Redeem those who because of their sin
were bound to suffer the curse of the Law (cf. Heb 2:17);
"and the Spirit is then sent to apply to sinners
all of the blessings the Son has accomplished for them,
adoption being what Paul emphasizes here.
"Salvation—the rescue of sinners by means of Atonement
—is inexorably Trinitarian.
"The Trinitarian shape of the Gospel
not only colors how one sees the Atonement conceived generally
but also how one understands The Extent of the Atonement in particular.
"The debate over The Extent of the Atonement
is often cast as a game of proof-text volleyball.
"The one holding to universal atonement argues,
“Paul says Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all!” (1 Tim 2:6).
"The particularist counters, “Well, Jesus says
He gave His life as a ransom for many!” (Mark 10:45).
"And back and forth they go.
"The Particularist aims to explain
why ostensibly universalistic language
ought not to be interpreted as absolutely universal
(i.e., "all of all sorts", "all without exception")
"but rather as indicating "some of all sorts",
"all of some sort", or "all without distinction".
"Advocates of universal atonement
respond that such interpretive moves
do not accord with the plain sense of Scripture,
and both sides furnish a cadre of commentators
supporting their mutually exclusive claims.
"It is at this point that the conversation typically reaches a stalemate
or, worse, gives way to frustration and uncharitable discourse.
"The key to breaking that stalemate is to recognize
that Scripture’s comments on the extent of Christ’s death
must be interpreted in light of its comments on the Design
and the Nature of the Atonement as well.
"The Scope of the Atonement must be understood
in light of both the Substance of the Atonement
(i.e., what the Atonement is)
"and the Scheme of the Atonement
(i.e., what it is Designed to accomplish).6
"If Scripture teaches that Christ’s death
did not merely make Salvation possible
(as in many strains of universal atonement)
"but actually accomplished the Salvation of those for whom He died
(as in Particular Redemption),
"then when confronted with one text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “all” (e.g., 1 Tim 2:6)
"and a virtually identical text
that speaks of Christ’s death for “many” (e.g., Mark 10:45),
"there will be an exegetical basis for interpreting “all” in 1 Timothy 2:6
to mean “all without distinction” rather than “all without exception.”
"The same is true for the Design
—or the Divine Intention—of The Atonement.
"If Scripture teaches that God Intended the Atonement
not merely to Provide a Salvation that could be accepted
or rejected (as in many strains of universal atonement)
"but actually and definitively to Save those
for whom it was Accomplished (as in Particular Redemption),
"then one could not escape the conclusion
that the Atonement extends no further
than to those who partake of its Saving Benefits.
"In both instances, Scripture’s clear teaching
on the Design and Nature of the Atonement
helps interpret the less clear teaching on the Extent of the Atonement.
"This is where The Doctrine of the Trinity
may be brought to bear
on The Doctrine of The Extent of The Atonement.
"In speaking of the Design, or Intent, of the Atonement,
one necessarily speaks of the Designer,
or Intender, of the Atonement,
Who is none other than the Triune God Himself.
"And since the very Nature of God’s Being as Trinity
shapes all God’s acts as Savior,
"one must ask what, if any, implications God’s Triunity has
for the atonement planned by the Father,
accomplished by the Son,
and applied by the Spirit.
"The thesis of this article, then,
is that the unity of the Trinity
is a legitimate exegetical-theological argument
in favor of the doctrine of particular redemption.7
"That is because the Father, Son, and Spirit
are Perfectly United in their Essence,
they must be Perfectly United in both their Saving Intentions
and their Saving Acts.
"What the Father wills
must be what the Son wills,
"and what the Son wills
must be what the Spirit wills.
"Those whom the Father intends to save
must therefore be the same exact number
as those whom the Son intends to save,
"and those whom the Son intends to save
must be the same exact number
as those whom the Spirit intends to save.
"Accordingly, since Scripture teaches
(a) that the Father has Chosen to save a particular people
and not all without exception,
and (b) that the Spirit will Regenerate that same particular people
and not all without exception, therefore it also teaches,
(c) that the Son has Atoned for that same particular people
and not all without exception.
"To say otherwise is to strike at the Unity of the Triune God."
from:
TRIUNE PARTICULARISM:
WHY UNITY IN THE TRINITY
DEMANDS A PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
by Mike Riccardi Ph.D., pg. 160-184.
The Master’s Seminary Associate Professor of Theology,
The Master’s Seminary.
Notes # 6 & # 7, see: pgs. 161-162, at:
https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TMSJ-Volume-33-Number-1.pdf#page=160
