Particular Redemption: Misconceptions cleared up

[ReformedBaptist]

Hey folks,

I thought this forum was lacking in threads on the doctrines of grace so I started another one. :laugh: :laugh: Just kidding.

I am not one to quote articles in mass as we are suppose to discuss and sometimes, if needed, debate the issues. Nevertheless I came accross a short article that I thought was worth sharing and will hopefully bring sober thinking to one of the points of calvinsim that is most hotly debated: Particular Redemption.

Here is the link http://www.monergism.com/clearing_up_some_common_misper.php

I am going to cut and past the points, but not the comment on the points. Let me ask a great favor, if you wish to post replies and discuss them, PLEASE read the entire article. It can be read in a few short minutes as it is not long at all. But in order to keep this post brief I have excluded the author's explainations.

In any discussion of particular redemption it is of first importance that we define what is at issue. This is because many persons misperceive what Reformed persons actually affirm in the doctrine.

Here are some areas all evangelicals (including Reformed) have in common with regard to Christ's atonement.

1) Both Calvinists & non-Calvinists affirm that the redemptive benefits of the atonement will only be applied to a limited number of persons. [more in the article]

2) Particular Redemption is not a question about the value of Christ's work on the cross. [more in the article]

3) Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike believe there are some benefits in the atonement that are applicable to all persons, with redemptive benefits going only to some. [more in the article]

So, then, what is at issue in particular redemption and why is it important? What is at issue is the intent of the atonement? What is it that the Holy Trinity had in mind in sending Christ to earth? Evangelicals agree that the Father sent the Son to be a vicarious substitutionary atonement. But for whom did Christ die? When he came to earth, which names did he have carved in his heart? Did he have the whole human race in mind, or was it those who were elect in Christ before the foundation of the world? (Eph 1: 4,5) Non-Calvinists will answer that it was for all humanity ... but Calvinists affirm that the redemptive benefits of Christ were only intended for those the Father has given the Son (John 17:9, 6:37, 39). Calvinists affirm that the Persons of the Trinity always act in harmony: The Father elects, the Eternal Son is sent to live and die for those the Father have given Him and the Holy Spirit applies the benefits to the same by bringing them into union with Christ.

It is in the grace of Christ itself that we even have the desire to pray or believe the gospel. No person will put faith in Christ who does not first have their heart changed by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle affirms that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' apart from the Holy Spirit" Effectual grace is not possible apart from the cross. The work of Christ is, therefore, effective toward all He intended to save. In other words, He fully accomplished what he set out to do. His effectual drawing of the elect is itself one of the benefits of the atonement. To separate this grace from Christ would be to affirm some kind of grace could be found outside the work of Christ, which is an impossible supposition -- for all spiritual blessings flow from Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3).

Here are some passages for further study of the effectual work of Christ in the atonement

(Exodus 28:29, John 17:9, 20; Rom 8:34; Eph 5:25; Rev 5:9)

While all may not agree with conclusions reached by those who embrace particular redemption
my hope is that this has made some clarifications of what we believe.



[more in the article]

May the Lord be pleased to use this information to clear up misconceptions, define the issue, and promote unity among the redeemed.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

bumpity bump!

 

[skypair]

RB,

To me, it appears that the doctrine of "particular redemption" applies to sanctification which cannot be accomplished in the unsaved but is automatically accomplished in the saved by the indwelling HS. I believe Calvinism is failing to make the distinctionhere between justification before God and sanctification through Christ.

That is, Christ died for ALL sin but most do not appropriate their justification in Christ through decisional reeneration. However, ALL will be "rescued" from hell to stand before Christ on account of their sins are forgiven.

Excuse me -- gotta go watch the morning sun highlighting the palm trees and peniusulas that jut out into the ocean (first morning in Kauai).


skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

To me, it appears that the doctrine of "particular redemption" applies to sanctification which cannot be accomplished in the unsaved but is automatically accomplished in the saved by the indwelling HS. I believe Calvinism is failing to make the distinctionhere between justification before God and sanctification through Christ.

That is, Christ died for ALL sin but most do not appropriate their justification in Christ through decisional reeneration. However, ALL will be "rescued" from hell to stand before Christ on account of their sins are forgiven.

Excuse me -- gotta go watch the morning sun highlighting the palm trees and peniusulas that jut out into the ocean (first morning in Kauai).


skypair

I percieve that thou art not far from universalism. :laugh:

That is my impression of what you wrote here.

 

[skypair]

I percieve that thou art not far from universalism. :laugh:

That is my impression of what you wrote here.

But there is a difference. You needn't "paint" me with that "brush."

Scripture affirms what I say -- it does not support the Calvinist formulation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

But there is a difference. You needn't "paint" me with that "brush."

Scripture affirms what I say -- it does not support the Calvinist formulation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

skypair

Why don't you take a jab at saying something postitve. In my OP I wrote "May the Lord be pleased to use this information to clear up misconceptions, define the issue, and promote unity among the redeemed."

Now, what in the OP do you wish to comment upon as it relates to common misconceptions concerning the doctrine of particular redemption? Do you agree or disagree with the similarites the author presents? Why or why not?

And skypair, I was just joking about the universalism comment...hence the laugh face...

 

[swaimj]

Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.

Both Calvinists & non-Calvinists affirm that the redemptive benefits of the atonement will only be applied to a limited number of persons. The question is not, therefore, if the atonement is limited or not (this has already been determined) but rather, the question is who does the limiting?

John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Calvinists even affirm other benefits to non-believers, such as: that the work of Christ has prolonged the forbearance of God toward all of us who justly deserve His wrath. In other words, there has been a postponement of punishment and this because of Christ.

Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

What is at issue is the intent of the atonement? What is it that the Holy Trinity had in mind in sending Christ to earth? Evangelicals agree that the Father sent the Son to be a vicarious substitutionary atonement. But for whom did Christ die?

Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.

 

[swaimj]

Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.

Both Calvinists & non-Calvinists affirm that the redemptive benefits of the atonement will only be applied to a limited number of persons. The question is not, therefore, if the atonement is limited or not (this has already been determined) but rather, the question is who does the limiting?

John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Calvinists even affirm other benefits to non-believers, such as: that the work of Christ has prolonged the forbearance of God toward all of us who justly deserve His wrath. In other words, there has been a postponement of punishment and this because of Christ.

Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

What is at issue is the intent of the atonement? What is it that the Holy Trinity had in mind in sending Christ to earth? Evangelicals agree that the Father sent the Son to be a vicarious substitutionary atonement. But for whom did Christ die?

Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.

John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.


Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.


Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.

Thanks for the reply. Swaim, what do you mean Christ died for the Father? Do you mean He came to do the Father's will? Then I agree. But He did not die for, or on behalf of the Father, but for His people.