Among all differences in soteriological convictions of the Arminian and the Calvinist, this one regarding the atonement is unmistakably the most difficult. Through the years Christians have had a real trouble in taking sides in this matter of the nature and design of the work of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. In my observation, the thing that hinders most saints from coming to terms with this doctrine is their traditional understanding of Christianity. From childhood on, we have heard the Arminian view of universal atonement and so anything contrary to that is for us a destructable heresy. But at the outset itself, let me encourage my readers to consider the scriptural and logical evidences being made by the two sides and prayerfully exercise true judgement over this matter.
3. The Doctrine of Particular Redemption - Part 1
Arminian: I believe that God so loved the world that He gave His Son for all of us. Since it is His desire to see all men everywhere to repent and know the truth, He sent His Son to die on behalf of all men. There are clear verses that prove my point. In John 1:29, it is written about John the Baptist saying as follows - “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”. Also in I John 2:2, it is written “He is the one who turns aside God’s wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours but also the sins of the whole world.” There needs no more discussion on what these verses mean as they are very clear for anyone who takes these Scriptures in their plainest, simplest sense and we can conclude that Jesus Christ died for all men on the Cross.
Then if the question is raised, why some men are not saved then the answer is as follows. Though Jesus Christ died for all as the atonement being universal, the application of it in an individual's life is surely based on that individual's response to the gospel in faith. So we limit the atonement only in its application and not in its extent. Thus we have an explanation of the atonement wherein the goodness of God is clearly revealed and judgement of unbelievers is surely placed on their moral responsibility.
To say that Christ died for the predestined ones alone is a blow on the clear teaching of the Scripture that God desires all men to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth. If Christ did not die for all men, then this verse in I Timothy 2:4 is of no sense. All these verses clearly advocate an universal atonement which is limited only in its application.
My Reply:
In the first section of my reply, I will seek to do a critical analysis of the universal atonement model proposed above, purely on a rational and logical level. Later on I will deal with this issue scripturally.
Let me begin by making it clear that I advocate particular redemption not because I do not like all men – every individual that was and will be born in this world, to be included in the atonement work of Christ. But rather I advocate and take time to answer the Arminian view on this simply because of the limitations put on the perfection and nature of the work of Christ by the Arminians and the glory given to Christ for the perfection and nature of the work of Christ in the Calvinistic view. So in other words, I am not debating over this doctrine because I do not love people and want somehow or the other prove that some people were not included in the work of Christ. That is not at all my driving passion while making known these truths and their defence. My driving passion is to make known the glory of Christ in His perfect and finished work on the Cross, which as an Arminian you cannot behold and much rather end up belittling it.
Before I make a defence of the doctrine of the particular redemption, let me explain why I do not embrace the Arminian view of universal atonement. I do not believe or advocate the Arminian view because of these reasons.
First of all, if Christ died for all individuals savingly, then all men should be saved. My Arminian brother pointed out that salvation of an individual is based on his response to the gospel in faith. I agree wholeheartedly that our response in faith to the gospel is critical for our salvation. But my question is, is faith with which we respond, a gift of God or not? If it is a gift, then why are some and that too for whom Jesus died, not given this gift of faith? If your answer is they were unwilling and so God did not give them. Then my question is where is it written that faith is a gift for the willing. Also is this willing a work of man apart from God, for which faith is given as a gift? If you say yes, then consider the logical sequence of a man's salvation. He hears the gospel, he wills to believe, God gifts him faith and thus he believes and gets saved. The initial and decisive factor which got him saved was not God, but his will which willed to believe, apart from God. Why should such a man give ALL the glory to God, when he reaches heaven? Shouldn't he just give some glory, for anyhow it was his willing that made the whole process of salvation begin. He should praise himself along with God who responded to his willingness and saved him. Another fact which arises from believing on these lines is that some are saved and some are not, based on one's willingness to be saved and therefore there are different kinds of sinners.
Like I have pointed out earlier in this series, there is no biblical teaching that supports this view of different kinds of sinners – some willing and some unwilling. Also during our discussion over total depravity it was shown that man is not only unwilling but also unable. We sure have a faculty called will, but because we are fallen, this faculty is under the bondage of sin, which makes us able to do only sin. For detailed scriptural discussions on that please read the earlier post on that topic.
Secondly, I do not embrace the Arminian view of atonement as it does not include the blessings of faith and repentance. In other words, they believe that if Jesus died for someone, then that does not mean that Jesus on the cross purchased along with the forgiveness of his sins, the evangelical graces of faith and repentance, which are needed for him to enter the kingdom. So they believe that faith is a gift of God given to men, not on the account of Jesus dying on their behalf, but because of some other reason, which from their argument I presume is one's willingness. Thus according to an Arminian, faith is a gift given by God, not on the virtue of the work of Christ, but on the work of man.
Thirdly, the logical conclusions derived from believing the Arminian view are insensible. Let me explain what I mean by that. If Jesus died for all men, then that means that Jesus turned aside God's wrath towards the sins of all men, as the verse in John 2:2 which was earlier quoted says. If that be the case, then when some one dies as a sinner and goes before God on the Last Day, with what wrath shall God condemn him? Has not the wrath of God been satisfied on the Cross? If you say, well he did not believe in the gospel and take advantage of its blessings, then I agree that he did not believe and therefore died as a sinner, but did not Jesus die for all his sins – including this one of unbelieving the gospel?
Thus if we believe the Arminian then we are forced to believe the following logical conclusions:
1.The death of Jesus Christ is for all men, but does not guarantee the salvation of any, but it rather makes salvation only possible for the willing ones to receive faith and be saved.
2.There is an inherent difference among sinners – some who are willing and some who are unwilling. Faith is a reward much more than a free gift, given on virtue of man's work namely his willingness. Faith is not a gift given to man simply on virtue of Christ dying on behalf of him.
3.When a lost sinner comes before Christ on the Last Day, he shall be judged for all his sins even though the wrath of God towards those sins were satisfactorily appeased by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Here we thus have a powerless atonement which is no way efficacious in its salvific effect. An atonement where men are saved or at least the process of salvation is initiated by man. Also one in which God is so full of wrath, that He first punishes Christ on behalf of a sinner and if that sinner dies unsaved, He pours out His wrath once again for the same sins.
The universal atonement of Arminians thus presents a Christ whose work is not perfect – in that it does not guarantee any salvation, but merely makes salvation possible. It also presents a Christ whose work is not finished – for any one to be actually saved, he must be willing on his own. And finally a God who has no foresight that He first afflicts Christ and then the lost sinner for the same sins.
Having shown the incoherence and irrationality of the Arminian view, let me move on to explain and defend the Reformed understanding of the work of atonement by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I end this section with a quote by an Arminian who later by the grace of God turned out to become a mighty Calvinist, the Prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon -
Arminian: I believe that God so loved the world that He gave His Son for all of us. Since it is His desire to see all men everywhere to repent and know the truth, He sent His Son to die on behalf of all men. There are clear verses that prove my point. In John 1:29, it is written about John the Baptist saying as follows - “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”. Also in I John 2:2, it is written “He is the one who turns aside God’s wrath, taking away our sins, and not only ours but also the sins of the whole world.” There needs no more discussion on what these verses mean as they are very clear for anyone who takes these Scriptures in their plainest, simplest sense and we can conclude that Jesus Christ died for all men on the Cross.
Then if the question is raised, why some men are not saved then the answer is as follows. Though Jesus Christ died for all as the atonement being universal, the application of it in an individual's life is surely based on that individual's response to the gospel in faith. So we limit the atonement only in its application and not in its extent. Thus we have an explanation of the atonement wherein the goodness of God is clearly revealed and judgement of unbelievers is surely placed on their moral responsibility.
To say that Christ died for the predestined ones alone is a blow on the clear teaching of the Scripture that God desires all men to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth. If Christ did not die for all men, then this verse in I Timothy 2:4 is of no sense. All these verses clearly advocate an universal atonement which is limited only in its application.
My Reply:
In the first section of my reply, I will seek to do a critical analysis of the universal atonement model proposed above, purely on a rational and logical level. Later on I will deal with this issue scripturally.
Let me begin by making it clear that I advocate particular redemption not because I do not like all men – every individual that was and will be born in this world, to be included in the atonement work of Christ. But rather I advocate and take time to answer the Arminian view on this simply because of the limitations put on the perfection and nature of the work of Christ by the Arminians and the glory given to Christ for the perfection and nature of the work of Christ in the Calvinistic view. So in other words, I am not debating over this doctrine because I do not love people and want somehow or the other prove that some people were not included in the work of Christ. That is not at all my driving passion while making known these truths and their defence. My driving passion is to make known the glory of Christ in His perfect and finished work on the Cross, which as an Arminian you cannot behold and much rather end up belittling it.
Before I make a defence of the doctrine of the particular redemption, let me explain why I do not embrace the Arminian view of universal atonement. I do not believe or advocate the Arminian view because of these reasons.
First of all, if Christ died for all individuals savingly, then all men should be saved. My Arminian brother pointed out that salvation of an individual is based on his response to the gospel in faith. I agree wholeheartedly that our response in faith to the gospel is critical for our salvation. But my question is, is faith with which we respond, a gift of God or not? If it is a gift, then why are some and that too for whom Jesus died, not given this gift of faith? If your answer is they were unwilling and so God did not give them. Then my question is where is it written that faith is a gift for the willing. Also is this willing a work of man apart from God, for which faith is given as a gift? If you say yes, then consider the logical sequence of a man's salvation. He hears the gospel, he wills to believe, God gifts him faith and thus he believes and gets saved. The initial and decisive factor which got him saved was not God, but his will which willed to believe, apart from God. Why should such a man give ALL the glory to God, when he reaches heaven? Shouldn't he just give some glory, for anyhow it was his willing that made the whole process of salvation begin. He should praise himself along with God who responded to his willingness and saved him. Another fact which arises from believing on these lines is that some are saved and some are not, based on one's willingness to be saved and therefore there are different kinds of sinners.
Like I have pointed out earlier in this series, there is no biblical teaching that supports this view of different kinds of sinners – some willing and some unwilling. Also during our discussion over total depravity it was shown that man is not only unwilling but also unable. We sure have a faculty called will, but because we are fallen, this faculty is under the bondage of sin, which makes us able to do only sin. For detailed scriptural discussions on that please read the earlier post on that topic.
Secondly, I do not embrace the Arminian view of atonement as it does not include the blessings of faith and repentance. In other words, they believe that if Jesus died for someone, then that does not mean that Jesus on the cross purchased along with the forgiveness of his sins, the evangelical graces of faith and repentance, which are needed for him to enter the kingdom. So they believe that faith is a gift of God given to men, not on the account of Jesus dying on their behalf, but because of some other reason, which from their argument I presume is one's willingness. Thus according to an Arminian, faith is a gift given by God, not on the virtue of the work of Christ, but on the work of man.
Thirdly, the logical conclusions derived from believing the Arminian view are insensible. Let me explain what I mean by that. If Jesus died for all men, then that means that Jesus turned aside God's wrath towards the sins of all men, as the verse in John 2:2 which was earlier quoted says. If that be the case, then when some one dies as a sinner and goes before God on the Last Day, with what wrath shall God condemn him? Has not the wrath of God been satisfied on the Cross? If you say, well he did not believe in the gospel and take advantage of its blessings, then I agree that he did not believe and therefore died as a sinner, but did not Jesus die for all his sins – including this one of unbelieving the gospel?
Thus if we believe the Arminian then we are forced to believe the following logical conclusions:
1.The death of Jesus Christ is for all men, but does not guarantee the salvation of any, but it rather makes salvation only possible for the willing ones to receive faith and be saved.
2.There is an inherent difference among sinners – some who are willing and some who are unwilling. Faith is a reward much more than a free gift, given on virtue of man's work namely his willingness. Faith is not a gift given to man simply on virtue of Christ dying on behalf of him.
3.When a lost sinner comes before Christ on the Last Day, he shall be judged for all his sins even though the wrath of God towards those sins were satisfactorily appeased by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Here we thus have a powerless atonement which is no way efficacious in its salvific effect. An atonement where men are saved or at least the process of salvation is initiated by man. Also one in which God is so full of wrath, that He first punishes Christ on behalf of a sinner and if that sinner dies unsaved, He pours out His wrath once again for the same sins.
The universal atonement of Arminians thus presents a Christ whose work is not perfect – in that it does not guarantee any salvation, but merely makes salvation possible. It also presents a Christ whose work is not finished – for any one to be actually saved, he must be willing on his own. And finally a God who has no foresight that He first afflicts Christ and then the lost sinner for the same sins.
Having shown the incoherence and irrationality of the Arminian view, let me move on to explain and defend the Reformed understanding of the work of atonement by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I end this section with a quote by an Arminian who later by the grace of God turned out to become a mighty Calvinist, the Prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon -
"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question -- Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died so that any man may be saved if” -- and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say then, we will just go back to the old statement -- Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you... We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)
To Be Continued....
