"Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne" -- C.H. Spurgeon
Particular atonement is nothing but limited atonement in the sense that Christ died only for the few elect and it is they who will be saved eventually.
Point 1:
11:32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all. 24
Spurgeon conveniently says , 'all' does not mean 'all' always. This is true provided the text qualifies who it is talking about. But it also means that all does mean all sometimes. One such would be the sinfulness of man. Rom 3 states that ,"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". It is the same thing Paul is stating here. All have sinned , God has given everyone over to sin. He has permitted sin to stain every human which is born, except Christ. Paul in this verse describes why God gave over all to sin. Why? So that he can have mercy on us all.
Roman 9 starts with stating that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and romans 11 ends by stating that God will have mercy on all.
If you agree the 'all' in "All have sinned" is really all humans, then it is not a big problem to believe in the same line of of thought that God shows mercy on them all. The 'all' who are given over to sin are the same 'all' who are shown mercy. Therefore it follows that God shows mercy to all as he has permitted sin to take over all. But those who do not resist God's mercy are saved whereas those who resist it are damned.
Point 2:
2:2 and hehimself is the atoning sacrifice 5 for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.6 1 John 2:2
And he (kai auto). He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice ( Hebrews 9:14 ).The propitiation (ilasmo). Late substantive from ilaskomai ( Luke 18:13 ; Hebrews 2:17 ), in LXX, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 1 John 4:10 . Christ himself is the means of propitiation for (peri concerning) our sins. See ilasthrion in Romans 3:15 . For the whole world (peri olou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of twn amartiwn (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27 , but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin ( Hebrews 5:19 ). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all ( Hebrews 2:9 ) if they will only be reconciled with God ( 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 ).
Point 3:
Here Spurgeon builds a straw man for arminianism by representing it as semi-pelagianism.
"For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing."
Arminianism does not teach that "man can choose grace" or that "anyone who pleases may attain unto eternal life"
Arminianism teaches that it is by the preveniant grace of God that people respond to saving grace. Anyone who pleases cannot by himself come to Christ. Anyone can come to Christ only as a response to the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. Man cannot take the initiative. He can only respond to the work of the Holy Spirit who has prepared that man by prevenient grace to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Arminian theology is neither pelagian nor semi-pelagian
Therefore Spurgeon is wrong not only in his understanding of whom Christ died for but also in his understanding of arminian theology of salvation.
Point 4:
Christ's offer of salvation is an invitation to the 'new covenant'. A covenant has two parties and each have responsibilities. The Monergism of spurgeon makes the 'new covenant' a one sided affair where as the synergism of arminianism which affirms salvation by grace through faith correctly explains the bilateral nature of the covenant.
Point 5:
The question of spurgeon as to whom did Christ die to save can be answered in several ways.
"Christ died to save sinners. He was very explicit in this. "I have come to seek and save the lost(not just the elect). I have come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance(not just the elect)."
If Christ came to call sinners to repentance and salvation, who are the sinners? All are sinners and need Christ.
Point 6:
Though Christ died for all , all do not accept him and therefore all are not saved. Though Christ died for all, Christ saves only those profess faith in him. These professing faith is not a meritorious work and is itself a response to God's grace. Therefore Christ dying as a ransom for many is also true. But it does not mean he did not die for all. The Scriptures teach that he died for all and also for the many(effectually). But it never teaches that he did not die for some who are damned forever. So salvation is offered universally and it becomes effectual in those who do not reject the work of the holy spirit but by the prevenient grace of God receive it.
Therefore Particular redemption is not true nor biblical.
Particular atonement is nothing but limited atonement in the sense that Christ died only for the few elect and it is they who will be saved eventually.
Point 1:
11:32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all. 24
Spurgeon conveniently says , 'all' does not mean 'all' always. This is true provided the text qualifies who it is talking about. But it also means that all does mean all sometimes. One such would be the sinfulness of man. Rom 3 states that ,"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". It is the same thing Paul is stating here. All have sinned , God has given everyone over to sin. He has permitted sin to stain every human which is born, except Christ. Paul in this verse describes why God gave over all to sin. Why? So that he can have mercy on us all.
Roman 9 starts with stating that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and romans 11 ends by stating that God will have mercy on all.
If you agree the 'all' in "All have sinned" is really all humans, then it is not a big problem to believe in the same line of of thought that God shows mercy on them all. The 'all' who are given over to sin are the same 'all' who are shown mercy. Therefore it follows that God shows mercy to all as he has permitted sin to take over all. But those who do not resist God's mercy are saved whereas those who resist it are damned.
Point 2:
2:2 and hehimself is the atoning sacrifice 5 for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.6 1 John 2:2
And he (kai auto). He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice ( Hebrews 9:14 ).The propitiation (ilasmo). Late substantive from ilaskomai ( Luke 18:13 ; Hebrews 2:17 ), in LXX, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 1 John 4:10 . Christ himself is the means of propitiation for (peri concerning) our sins. See ilasthrion in Romans 3:15 . For the whole world (peri olou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of twn amartiwn (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27 , but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin ( Hebrews 5:19 ). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all ( Hebrews 2:9 ) if they will only be reconciled with God ( 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 ).
Point 3:
Here Spurgeon builds a straw man for arminianism by representing it as semi-pelagianism.
"For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing."
Arminianism does not teach that "man can choose grace" or that "anyone who pleases may attain unto eternal life"
Arminianism teaches that it is by the preveniant grace of God that people respond to saving grace. Anyone who pleases cannot by himself come to Christ. Anyone can come to Christ only as a response to the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. Man cannot take the initiative. He can only respond to the work of the Holy Spirit who has prepared that man by prevenient grace to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Arminian theology is neither pelagian nor semi-pelagian
"Salvation, then, in the Pelagian perspective comes through obedience; we are justified on the basis of our merits, which we gain through our obedience to God. Augustine taught that salvation comes through divine grace. Our only claim on salvation is the promise of grace through Christ. Even our good works are dependent upon grace, and therefore are not meritorious. This is the basis for the classic doctrine of total depravity.
It is quite clear that Arminians are not Pelagian, because Arminans affirm the doctrines of original sin and total depravity. Human salvation is completely dependent upon God’s grace, without which we would be helpless. While Arminians do hold that God’s prevenient grace provides fallen humanity with a measure of freedom so that we can respond to God, this freedom is not an inherent human quality. Rather, it is a gift of grace, without which we would be helpless.
Semi-Pelagianism is a mediating position between Augustine and Pelagius which was proposed later. In Semi-Pelagianism, the initial step towards salvation is made by the unaided human free will. In other words, the human person is capable of deciding to turn to Christ in faith, without any divine assistance. After that initial step is made, the Semi-Pelagian position proposes, divine grace is then poured out for the “increase of faith.” Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529.
Again, any responsible account of Arminian soteriology will make it clear that Arminians are not Semi-Pelagian. Arminians do not believe that human beings decide to exercise faith in Christ by an unaided act of the will. On the contrary, they affirm that, without divine grace, the fallen human person is incapable of turning to God. Prevenient grace frees the person so that such a response is possible.
What is distinctive about the Arminian position (as opposed to monergistic Reformed accounts) is that God’s grace is resistible, meaning that we can refuse his gracious offer of salvation. However, that hardly means that our acceptance of that offer is some kind of Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian meritorious “work.” "
----- James Pedler , http://jamespedlar.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/why-arminian-theology-is-neither-pelagian-nor-semi-pelagian/Therefore Spurgeon is wrong not only in his understanding of whom Christ died for but also in his understanding of arminian theology of salvation.
Point 4:
Christ's offer of salvation is an invitation to the 'new covenant'. A covenant has two parties and each have responsibilities. The Monergism of spurgeon makes the 'new covenant' a one sided affair where as the synergism of arminianism which affirms salvation by grace through faith correctly explains the bilateral nature of the covenant.
Point 5:
The question of spurgeon as to whom did Christ die to save can be answered in several ways.
"Christ died to save sinners. He was very explicit in this. "I have come to seek and save the lost(not just the elect). I have come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance(not just the elect)."
If Christ came to call sinners to repentance and salvation, who are the sinners? All are sinners and need Christ.
Point 6:
Though Christ died for all , all do not accept him and therefore all are not saved. Though Christ died for all, Christ saves only those profess faith in him. These professing faith is not a meritorious work and is itself a response to God's grace. Therefore Christ dying as a ransom for many is also true. But it does not mean he did not die for all. The Scriptures teach that he died for all and also for the many(effectually). But it never teaches that he did not die for some who are damned forever. So salvation is offered universally and it becomes effectual in those who do not reject the work of the holy spirit but by the prevenient grace of God receive it.
Therefore Particular redemption is not true nor biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment