Now That The Frivolities are Over… L.A., Part 3

We can get back to more serious matters (j/k honey, honestly ;))…

Going back to looking at Limited Atonement I want in this post to focus on the logical implications of accepting an unlimited atonement. In other words for the Reformed Christian what would be the problems associated with taking an understanding of the cross and its efficacious manner for all of humanity in light of how us Reformed folk hermeneutically read the Scripture’s structure and overall composition.

1) Unlimited Atonement denies Unconditional Election

This is a pretty big statement if I might say so myself so I better figure out a way to defend it. So here we go.

As election is understood as God’s unconditional selection (John 6:65) of certain human beings to be glorified through Christ’s righteousness and death it cannot be that Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection could be both efficient and sufficient for all people and then God only elect a few of the righteous to be saved. So if this last clause be true then there must be something we need more than Christ’s imputation and therefore another way we come to salvation outside of Christ’s own righteousness. This means for the Christian man or woman that we must add something to Christ’s work to be saved. This is an untenable position for anyone outside of Rome, Constantinople, and Arminius (and therefore Biblical Christians) to hold. Unconditional Election means what it says, that we bring nothing to the table insofar as our own righteousness is concerned. In other words we bring a peanut to a gun fight and can add nothing to the work Christ has accomplished and applied on or behalf to satisfy the justice that God the Father seeks for our rightful condemnation under the inheritance we receive as being sons and daughters of Adam. Unconditional Election, as John Calvin notes in the Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.21.7:

Although it is now sufficiently plain that God by his secret counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others, his gratuitous election has only been partially explained until we come to the case of single individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but so assigns it, that the certainty of the result remains not dubious or suspended…We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment. In regard to the elect, we regard calling as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment of glory. But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them.

Here we see Calvin marking the distinction that for whom Christ died God has elected through no effort or previous worth of the individual but only through the free and unconditional grace of God.

2) Unlimited Atonement denies Justification by Faith Alone

We touched on this a little bit in the previous section but I want to draw it out a little bit more. First to define Justification by Faith Alone we’ll let the originator, God, speak for himself in Romans 10:9, “That if you shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.” O.K., seems plain enough. But for clarification lets take a look at Ephesians 2:8-10, “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” One more for good measure, Galatians 2:21 “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” So we see that we are saved not by works or any addition upon Christ’s work that can possibly come from us. Therefore how can we say that that Christ’s work on the cross is not enough to separate the sheep from the goats? If we say that Christ died for all yet only some are saved that Christ’s righteousness is not enough for salvation.

3) Unlimited Atonement implies Universal Salvation

In other words unlimited atonement logically implies universal salvation. Again if one believes in Justification by Faith Alone then one must believe that nothing can be added to Christ’s imputed righteousness that can lead to our protection from God’s righteous wrath against those who hate his law and mock his Son therefore being condemned themselves by their works to Hell except for Christ’s atoning death. It cannot be stated and restated enough in my opinion. Unlimited Atonement implies and logically must mean Universal Salvation if one holds to an orthodox understanding of Justification and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect.

Chapter XI. Of Justification — Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Galatians 3:28

I’d like to take a few posts and ponder a look at what I see as verses that are misunderstood by not only the laity but also many scholars and clergy. The first one up on the rotation is Galatians 3:28. As a quick reminder here is the verse:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (NASB)

In today’s culture this verse is used by many people as a proof text for not only the full inclusion of women in all positions within the ecclesiastical offices but also to say that the New Testament church should no longer recognize separate gender identification. They take “neither male nor female” to either dismiss gender roles or gender all together. It is my contention that not only does the verse say no such thing but it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with equality or gender. Paul’s point in this verse has nothing to do with saying Jews and Greeks, Slaves and Masters, or Men and Women are equal but that they are one in Christ Jesus. There is giant difference between equality and unity. If Paul’s point in this verse is to say that all of these distinctions no longer exist or are no longer applicable then he has contradicted himself in every one of his letters. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans 9-11 to describe the differences between Jews and Greeks. Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus describes in great detail the difference in roles (not worth) between men and women. Paul also calls out Overseers and deacons from the congregations of his churches to be set apart for leadership. One of the most favored pericopes of Paul’s in use today (1 Cor 12:12-31) is his imagery of the many body parts and their unity and usefulness in the body. Paul does not say all body parts are equal in their diversity but they are all equal in their worth to the function of the entire body. His point is that the body strength is its unity, not its diversity. This is vital for our understanding of the proper usage Galatians 3:28 because Paul is clear in saying that not all are called to do whatever they wish to do but only for what the Spirit has called for them. What right does a foot to be a hand? Or a Liver to do the work of the Lung? All are called to specific roles and functions with in the unified body of Christ. If one is called to be a Lung and they do not pull oxygen into the blood stream the whole body suffers from the effects of deprivation. This is serious business.

However even outside of the denial of the motive of equality for Paul’s writing this verse in Galatians is the context in which it is written. One of the common critiques of conservatives by liberals is that conservatives “do not understand the context” of a given passage that if we look at the entirety of a passage it will not have the restrictive meaning we give it. Well here is an example of a verse where liberals and moderate evangelicals take a given pericope and extract it from its surrounding context and use it for their own purpose. Paul is speaking in Galatians 3 of the unity of the salvation that is given by Jesus Christ through Grace by Faith. Working backwards verse 27 speaks of our one baptism in Christ (UNITY), verse 26 all are sons of God (we do not have space but one would be smart to look into the usage of Sons of God and what it means) because of faith in Christ (UNITY), verses 25-21 Paul is talking about the Law and Faith (UNITY), verses 20-15 the covenant of Abraham seed (UNITY). Not a word that precedes Galatians 3:28 speaks of diversity in the body or having anything to with the eradication of role but speaking to the foolish Galatians who have denied the unity of their faith. Verse 29 concludes and summarizes what Paul has been speaking of in this chapter. He says:

29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Paul, given the context of Galatians 3, cannot be speaking in Galatians 3:28 about an egalitarian worldview. The text does not bear this out nor can it, no matter the wiggling. We do a disservice to Paul if we take this out-of-context for our own selfish desires.