OK….after much hesitation and acknowledging that this is going to go astray….but hoping not…. But what I am hoping for are insights on the relationship between faith and justification as presented by Sproul (not an argument about limited atonement).
I have been reading “What is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics” by R.C. Sproul (which, contrary to what the title may suggest, is actually an argument against “Arminians, Dispensationalists, and other semi-Pelagians” more than it is a presentation of Reformed doctrine). If there are any Sproul readers out there, I’d appreciate your insight on some of his comments.
Here is a portion of the text where I am trying to follow Sproul’s argument:
Some of the problem is that “faith” is not a “work.” Even within non-Calvinistic doctrine it is a work of God as opposed to a work of man. But particularly in the Bible faith is presented as a non-work. I don’t know where he comes up with justification by faith equates to justification by works.
Second, and more of a note I suppose, his argument (which is actually Spurgeon’s argument applied to atonement and divine justice rather than faith as a grace) fails. He notes that some (“Arminians, Dispensationalists, and other semi-Pelagians”) think that we are justified by faith which equates to making salvation unsure as it is dependent on man. I am not sure how he makes this connection. But here is his example:
His answer - “It covers my former unbelief but not the present unbelief of unbelievers.” Why? Because faith has absolutely nothing to do with justification - we are considered “just” because of Christ’s payment of our sins centuries ago. He was therefore justified when Christ paid his debt - faith doesn’t enter the picture.
If this is the Reformed view, how does it reconcile with the justification by faith passages?
(Here's the book: http://www.ligonier.org/store/what-is-reformed-theology-paperback/)
I have been reading “What is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics” by R.C. Sproul (which, contrary to what the title may suggest, is actually an argument against “Arminians, Dispensationalists, and other semi-Pelagians” more than it is a presentation of Reformed doctrine). If there are any Sproul readers out there, I’d appreciate your insight on some of his comments.
Here is a portion of the text where I am trying to follow Sproul’s argument:
“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.”
“If faith is necessary to the atonement, then Christ’s work was indeed a mere potentiality. In itself it saves no one. It merely makes salvation possible. Theoretically we must ask the obvious question. What would have happened to the work of Christ if nobody believed in it? That had to be a theoretical possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain. He would have been a potential Savior of all but an actual Savior of none. “
“If faith is necessary to the atonement, then Christ’s work was indeed a mere potentiality. In itself it saves no one. It merely makes salvation possible. Theoretically we must ask the obvious question. What would have happened to the work of Christ if nobody believed in it? That had to be a theoretical possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain. He would have been a potential Savior of all but an actual Savior of none. “
Some of the problem is that “faith” is not a “work.” Even within non-Calvinistic doctrine it is a work of God as opposed to a work of man. But particularly in the Bible faith is presented as a non-work. I don’t know where he comes up with justification by faith equates to justification by works.
Second, and more of a note I suppose, his argument (which is actually Spurgeon’s argument applied to atonement and divine justice rather than faith as a grace) fails. He notes that some (“Arminians, Dispensationalists, and other semi-Pelagians”) think that we are justified by faith which equates to making salvation unsure as it is dependent on man. I am not sure how he makes this connection. But here is his example:
“Today I enjoy the benefit of an atonement made for me centuries ago. Did that atonement satisfy the demands of God’s justice on all of my sins? If it did, then it satisfied the penalty for the sin of my previous unbelief. Was that sin paid for before I believed?”
His answer - “It covers my former unbelief but not the present unbelief of unbelievers.” Why? Because faith has absolutely nothing to do with justification - we are considered “just” because of Christ’s payment of our sins centuries ago. He was therefore justified when Christ paid his debt - faith doesn’t enter the picture.
If this is the Reformed view, how does it reconcile with the justification by faith passages?
(Here's the book: http://www.ligonier.org/store/what-is-reformed-theology-paperback/)
Last edited by a moderator:
. I supplied a couple of quotes but, of course, not the entire work. This was, obviously, in the limited atonement portion of the book. 