Soteriology Soteriology ST309 LESSON 09 of 24 The Extent of Christ’s Death – Part 1 H. Phillip Hook, ThD. Experience: Dallas Theological Seminary, ThM and ThD This is tape number nine of twenty-four on the subject of soteriology by Phillip Hook. After discussing the person of Christ and the work of Christ, we need to go a step beyond this now to deal with first the extent of Christ’s death and then the results of His death. In order to deal with the extent, I need to go back a little bit and talk to you about historical background because we’re starting to approach now the differences that historically have been a part of Arminianism and Calvinism, but in the more contemporary circles also involves many of the variations in between. In the Reformation when John Calvin brought theology back into the church and really worked through, again, the doctrine of salvation, he went back to Augustine and Augustine’s concept of depravity. The reaction to Augustine back in the early centuries of the church was Pelagianism. Augustine felt that man was totally depraved as we have defined it earlier, that man was totally unable to make himself acceptable to God; that sin had affected all parts of what man was. A British monk named Pelagius countered Augustine and said that man was not totally depraved, he was not affected by the sin of Adam in any direct sense and Pelagianism was condemned by the church. It came back in another form as semi- Pelagianism and this taught that man had a bent towards sin but he was not depraved. Semi- Pelagianism, again, was set aside as the mainstream doctrine by the church but in reality came back in into Romanism where Thomistic philosophy and man’s ability to reason his way to God was dependent upon man’s not being totally alienated from God and totally unable to make himself acceptable or even to will or think his way to God. As this increasingly affected Roman Catholic theology, part of the reaction of the Reformation then became the return to Augustinism and this is found particularly in John Calvin. Now, out of Calvin’s emphasis, first of all then on the depravity of man, but then on the countering part of this, that is, the sovereignty of God: if man can do nothing, Transcript - ST309 Soteriology 1 of 8 © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved. 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 Transcript - ST309 Soteriology 2 of 8 © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved. Lesson 09 of 24 The Extent of Christ’s Death – Part 1 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 Transcript - ST309 Soteriology 3 of 8 © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved. Lesson 09 of 24 The Extent of Christ’s Death – Part 1 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.