Soteriology Soteriology

Soteriology 1 of 8 ST309 09 of 24 09 LESSON ThM and ThD H. Phillip Hook, ThD. Phillip Hook, H. Experience: Dallas Theological Seminary, Seminary, Experience: Dallas Theological he was not depraved. Semi- Pelagianism, again, was set aside as again, Pelagianism, Semi- he was not depraved. in the mainstream doctrine by the church but in reality came back ability to into Romanism where Thomistic philosophy and man’s not being totally upon man’s reason his way to God was dependent acceptable unable to make himself from God and totally alienated As this increasingly or even to will or think his way to God. part of the reaction of the affected Roman Catholic theology, this is Reformation then became the return to Augustinism and emphasis, out of Calvin’s Now, found particularly in John Calvin. countering the on then but man, of depravity the on then all of first sovereignty of God: if man can do nothing, the that is, part of this, he went back to Augustine and Augustine’s concept of depravity. concept of depravity. Augustine’s he went back to Augustine and in the early centuries of the church The reaction to Augustine back totally depraved as Augustine felt that man was was Pelagianism. we have defined it earlier, that man was totally unable to make sin had affected all parts of what himself acceptable to God; that countered Augustine A British monk named Pelagius man was. affected not was he depraved, totally not was man that said and was Pelagianism and sense direct any in Adam of sin the by It came back in another form as semi- condemned by the church. and this taught that man had a bent towards sin but Pelagianism After discussing the person of Christ and the work of Christ, we Christ and the work of Christ, After discussing the person of need to go a step beyond this now to deal with first the extent of death and then the results of His death. Christ’s In order to deal with the I extent, need to go back a little bit and to starting because we’re talk to you about historical background that historically have been a part approach now the differences but in the more contemporary of Arminianism and Calvinism, In the the variations in between. circles also involves many of brought theology back into the Reformation when John Calvin the doctrine of salvation, again, church and really worked through, This is tape number nine of twenty-four on the subject of nine of twenty-four This is tape number Phillip Hook. soteriology by

Soteriology Lesson 09 of 24 The Extent of Christ’s Death – Part 1

then God sovereignly works to bring him back to Himself, there developed a system of theology that has its foundation in Calvin’s institutes but since then, in the development of many reformed theologians since that places its premium of emphasis on these two things: depravity and the sovereignty of God. When this is applied to salvation or soteriology, it comes out as the five points of Calvinism. We’ll be looking at these at various times along the way but I’d like to note them for you and then to note the Arminian reaction and then to help you realize that there are the extremes as well as all kinds of variations in between.

The first point of Calvinism and, by the way, there’s an acrostic that helps most theological students remember the five points of Calvinism, which is tulip, T-U-L-I-P. The “T” stands for total depravity and we’ve already defined this. The “U” stands for unconditional election. In the perspective of Calvinism, this is that God before the foundation of the world unconditionally elected some unto eternal life. The third step of Calvinism is the “L” of limited atonement. When God chose some, He then provided atonement or forgiveness for that group of elect ones and this is why it is called limited atonement. The atonement is applied only to the elect. The fourth step is irresistible grace. This step very simply says that in the process of salvation, God through His Holy Spirit irresistibly brings to salvation those whom He has chosen. The “P” stands for perseverance of the saints and is more commonly known in many evangelical circles as eternal security but it, in essence, says that those whom God has elected and redeemed and irresistibly drawn to Himself, they will persevere unto the end and will obtain all that their salvation promises.

Now in the second and third generation of Calvinism, in some of its extreme forms as it started deciding the order of the decrees, there arose a reaction by a man named Arminius, A-R-M-I-N-I- U-S, it’s not like the Armenians but it’s Arminian. And Arminius developed five countering points and these points, as you might suspect, say that God’s working in salvation is not just the working of a sovereign God but bringing back certain Pelagian emphases in the process of salvation says that man may respond, may will, may be able to work out to a degree, his own salvation and, therefore, Arminius said man is not totally depraved but his depravity is limited. He has a bent towards sin but he still has the will, the power to initiate his salvation. Election rather than being unconditional is conditional and particularly for most contemporary Arminians this conditional election is based not upon the foreordination of God or the predestination or planning

but is based upon God’s foreknowledge and, therefore, those that God knew He would accept, He elected and their election is conditional, dependent upon their acceptance. In contrast to limited atonement, the Arminian has said that the atonement is unlimited; that is, that it is a provision of salvation for everyone depending upon whether they are willing to accept it or not. Rather than irresistible grace, Arminius developed the concept of resistible grace. But while some were irresistibly brought to God, others were able to resist God’s grace and by their will say no to God and His calling process. And then rather than the perseverance of the saints, the security of the believer is dependent upon his continuing to believe, his continuing faith.

Now, over the four-plus centuries since the Reformation, Arminianism and Calvinism have been a major focal point of the debate within evangelical circles. I think it’s fair to say that in recent years, particularly the last two generations, the difference between these viewpoints has become much less. The Arminian has come much more to a position of some form of depravity that vitally affects man and the Calvinist does not operate always in quite as strict a category as he once did.

Now, our primary interest in soteriology is to understand the two perspectives, not necessarily to espouse either of them because they are systems and once you’ve stepped inside one step of the system, the others logically follow. Theological decisions are interdependent decisions. When you have made one decision, then the next decision and the next and the next grow out of them; and, therefore, there’s a very real sense in which the root difference between Calvinism and Arminianism goes back to one’s concept of man as a sinner. If he has a free will and he’s capable of initiating his relationship or a relationship toward God or an approach toward God, then one automatically follows down the next of the steps. On the other hand, if one has made the decision that man is totally incapable, then almost automatically he follows down the other side of the catalog. Now, as you can gather from what I have already said in the course, my own approach is a mixed approach. I accept very strongly the total depravity of man but along the way when it comes to the atonement, I, as you would have gathered from my statements about forgiveness and reconciliation and propitiation, accept that the provision of the atonement is available to all. Now to some degree or another we’re going to realize that the difference in atonement is not necessarily as great as it may seem and that there is probably more variation in the perspectives of people who hold one perspective

or another in this area than any of the others. But it is this area that is our primary concern at this point and that is when we look at the death of Christ and its provision for sin and sins and the availability of righteousness because of it, to whom does it apply, what is the extent of that atonement?

Now, with this much as background, I’d like to make two or three further observations. You might read, for example, John Murray’s book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, or, another of his books that I’m going to quote from before this lecture is done further, a little paperback put out by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company simply called, The Atonement by John Murray. These are two of the better contemporary books that espouse the strict reformed perspective and he very carefully works out all of the implications of the death of Christ in regard to the extent of the atonement. On the other hand, you might refer to a systematic theology such as John Miley’s to see the development of the countering five points, and particularly there, the view of unlimited atonement. Some of the mediating viewpoints, for example, would be the Scofield Bible, which accepts an approach of foreknowledge to the concept of election and approaches the concept of unlimited atonement and yet retains the sense of depravity and irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. There are other kinds of variations that fall in the middle. But of these observations about the extent of the atonement, for example, first of all there’s a sense in which the difference is semantic. For example, if you would ask John Murray, “Is the atonement of Christ available to anyone?” he would probably answer the question, “Yes.” If you would say, “Is the atonement effective?” then obviously he would answer the question, “No.” If you would turn around to the Arminian and ask him the same two questions, he would probably answer them in the same way that the atonement is available to all who would accept. “Is it effective to all?” And he would say, “No,” because Arminians are not normally universalists. Therefore, there’s a sense in which the difference is more semantic than real. The Calvinist can preach the Gospel to all in the same sense that the Arminian does because he does accept that the availability is to all who would believe. He would just make a simple modification and that is: that only those who are elected will believe but he still would feel it’s a valid presentation of the Gospel to say that is it available to any who would believe. On the other hand, the Arminian in the same statement would feel that it is available to all and any who wish may believe. And, you see, there the difference has gone back to his concept of man and of depravity.

There is, therefore, a second observation that follows from this and that is that the real difference beyond the concept of depravity is a difference of perspective. The Calvinist looks at the process of salvation as a work of God and, as such, he sees it totally as God at work while the Arminian sees it as a process of cooperation. It is God and man; and, therefore, by adding man to the perspective so that man may will, man may initiate the process, man may even reason his way to God, then you have a quite different perspective because you have brought man very prominently into the scene.

Now maybe one further observation might be helpful before we actually look at the arguments on each side and that is that in the contemporary non-theological scene, there is something happening that is quite radically changing the perspective with which most people are approaching the problem of Calvinism/ Arminianism today and that is the determinism that has become so dominant in our scientific world. For example, in much of sociology and psychology today determinism has become the most dominant and prominent problem. The existentialist today in his philosophy, as he looks at the determined scientific cause and effect world, wonders if there is anything that man can do that is truly free and at least one existentialist has decided that the only really free act that any man can do in this world of cause and effect, this scientific world of environmentally conditioning, that act is suicide. Man cannot initiate life, he cannot control it, by the time he’s old enough to make decisions according to psychology, he is already conditioned by his environment to make certain decisions and, therefore, since he cannot initiate life, he cannot change it. Some of the existentialists are saying the only thing man can do is end it. And as theology has sought to wrestle with the kind of determinism that is being raised in this contemporary discussion, it has changed very much the perspective with which the whole Arminian/Calvinist debate is sometimes carried on.

Now with this much as a background I’d like to start with the perspective of limited atonement and I’d like to just read a paragraph from page 27 of John Murray’s book, The Atonement. In speaking of the extent of the atonement John Murray writes, “For whom did Christ die? Sober evaluation of the nature of the atonement and of its perfection leads to one conclusion. If it accomplished all that is implied by the categories by which it is defined and if it secures and insures the consummating redemption, the design must be coextensive with the ultimate results.”

Now let me stop a moment because this last phrase is the key to understanding the Calvinist approach. The design and the result must be identical and, therefore, they say that the design is to redeem the elect and, therefore, its efficacy or its effectiveness must be paralleled with that.

Back to Murray again: “If some fail of eternal salvation, that is, if some will not ultimately be saved as the Scripture plainly teaches, if they will not enjoy final redemption, they cannot be embraced in that which procured and secured it. The atonement is so defined in terms of efficacious accomplishment that it must have the same extent as salvation bestowed and consummated. Unless we believe that in the final restoration of all mankind, we cannot have an unlimited atonement. On the premise that some perish eternally, we are shut up to one of two alternatives: a limited efficacy or a limited extent. There is no such thing as unlimited atonement.”

Now, the key thought in the Calvinist approach is a basic presupposition that every work of God is efficacious. Now, efficacious is a theological term that most simply means effective. Every work of God is effective, efficacious and, therefore, as God has planned and designed salvation, it must be efficacious/ effective for all for whom He has planned it. And if He provided atonement for some who do not receive it, then the effectiveness of the plan breaks down. On the other hand, he would argue that if atonement is unlimited, then the very effective nature of the working of God would be that all would be saved. Now, it’s obvious in scripture that there are a number that will not be saved. And, therefore, from the Calvinist perspective the atonement was not provided for these people.

Now I’d like to read to you and comment briefly on some of the passages that are used to support the perspective of limited atonement. For example, in John 10, our Lord is talking about His role as a shepherd. He has two or three parables depending on how you divide the chapter here about the good shepherd. It’s an explanation in many ways of why not everybody is responding to the Messiah and so down at about John 10:11, we’ll pick up reading, “I am the Good Shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd; I know my own and my own know me.

As the Father knows me and I know the Father and I lay down my life for the sheep and I have other sheep that are not of this fold, I must bring them in also and they will heed my voice so there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Now, two or three times the Lord has said that He will lay down His life for the sheep for those who are to be the believers: those out of Israel; those out of the other flocks of this world, the Gentiles, that He will bring to Himself.

Now, another of the passages that is sometimes used as illustrative of the viewpoint of limited atonement is Ephesians 5. In this great passage of speaking of the love of the Lord for His church as an example of the love of husbands for the wives Paul writes in Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word that the church might be presented before Him in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Now the statement very clearly in Ephesians 5:25 is that Christ loved the church and He gave Himself up for her.

Now, these are two passages; there are others that could be used as illustrations but these are two passages that show very really that the death of Christ was for those who were the elect, those who are the believers. And there’s another kind of passage that is used to promote the view. For example, in 2 Corinthians 5, a couple of verses that we’ve looked at before but that are very really applicable at this point, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For the love of Christ controls us because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore, all have died and He died for all that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised.” Now, this becomes a very crucial passage in explaining the viewpoint of limited atonement because it both includes a statement that says, “Christ died for all” and a statement that the Calvinist sees as very restrictive, “therefore, all have died.” Now, if you will parallel this, for example, with Colossians 2 or Romans 6, we realize that the identification with the death of Christ is something that is a part of the believer’s experience through the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. We are identified with Him in His death and His resurrection, baptized into His death and resurrection. And this is very clearly, in Romans 6 and Colossians 2, an experience of believers. And, therefore, the Calvinist, as he looks at 2 Corinthians 5:14 says, for the love of Christ controls us because we’re convinced that one has died for all, therefore, all have died. And he said now the all that is a part of

this passage is not the all that means everybody in the world but it is an all that means all of the believers and, therefore, Christ’s death for all in this passage is an illustration of the fact that the death really is limited in its nature and its extent.

Now, the Calvinist has a third part of his evidence that he deals with in regard to showing the limited atonement is the best interpretation or the interpretation of the New Testament and that is to counter the viewpoint, for example, that John 3:16 means everybody or that 1 John 2:2 or 2 Corinthians 5:19 to the end of the chapter, which are passages that we’ll be looking at shortly in regard to the view of unlimited atonement. And he says that all does not always mean everybody. The world does not always mean everybody in the world and, therefore, these passages, while they seemingly teach unlimited atonement—Murray, for example, would say that they do not. For example, page 29 of his book: “Universal terms are frequently used in connection with the death of Christ as also in connection with the categories to divine its importance. It is surprising that students of Scriptures should with such ease appeal these texts as if they determine the question in favor of universal atonement. The Scripture frequently uses universal terms when obviously they are not to be understood of all men inclusively or distributively or of all things inclusively. When we read in Genesis 6:13 ‘the end of all flesh is come before me,’ it is plain that this is not to be understood absolutely or inclusively. Not all flesh was destroyed.” And then he goes on with further illustrations of this and, therefore, from this the Calvinist concludes that the death of Christ is for the elect and that every work of God is effective and, therefore, all those elect will be brought to God and will persevere.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere