Drippings from the Honeycomb
More to be desired are [the rules of the Lord] than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. (Psalm 19:10)
|
*The last few Easters I have written a blog exploring a facet of the atonement (see here). I’ve delayed this one, partly because it ties in with our study of Mk 10:45. Christians agree on the necessity and usually the nature of the atonement but not always its extent, which is why our Fellowship’s statement, which brought together a diverse group of Baptists, is quiet on the matter (though ‘sovereign, electing grace’ would infer one of these). For Whom Did Jesus Die? In the broadest sense the answer to this question is simple—everyone. Jesus died a sinner’s death to offer salvation to sinners. Every sinner has encouragement to approach Christ for salvation. In the Gospel we call all people to repent and believe in Jesus as Lord. In a more specific or nuanced sense, for the Bible speaks specifically about this question alongside its generalities, the answer is one that has long divided evangelicals and Baptists, especially in the last century. Long before the marker of liberal-conservative, the answer to this question traditionally categorized Baptists as: General Baptists, that Jesus died for everyone (the historic minority); and Particular Baptists, that Jesus died for a particular people, the elect (the historic majority). The two groups exist because there are verses that seem to support one side or the other:
How does one reconcile two seemingly very different sets of verses? Which is correct? How should we understand them together?
Some exegesis A basic principle of interpreting the Bible (hermeneutics) is context and that the less clear or ambiguous are interpreted in light of those that are clearer. In this case, the Particular verses are clearer, and the context reveals that the General verses fall into one of three categories: 1) world as a generalization or referring to Gentiles, 2) us/our passages, and 3) comments on God’s desire. First, take “propitiation for the whole world,” and given its Jewish context it is most probably an indication that Jesus died for Gentiles too. That God so loved the world is a gesture of His benevolence. Second, when the apostles wrote to churches, they were comprised of believers, and so “when we were enemies, Christ died for us,” pertains to believers and not everyone. Third, God’s desire to save can be seen as part of He general will and not his particular, or hidden, will. We also need to understand these verses in relation to other biblical doctrines, one of which being election. All of the Bible’s teachings much ultimately be in agreement. From these verses and wider theology, Christ died for a particular people, the elect (transactional sense), yet his death is of infinite value that the merits of His death may be offered to all (offertory sense). Another way to say this is Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all but effective for the elect. This is further borne out by some logic. Some Logic If Jesus did in fact transactionally die for every person, then all must be saved (universalism), and because all in reality are not, He is not a true Saviour (so why would I trust in Him?). (Likewise, if it was God’s special will that all be saved, and all aren’t, then He is impotent). If no one believed, God would be made to be a fool in that Christ died in vain. He is not sufficient (again, why would I trust Him).If Jesus transactionally died for all then He is a potential Saviour to all but an actual Saviour for none. Further, God would require a double justice of those who don’t believe and go to hell, because their sins were first paid on the cross, which makes a mockery of God’s justice. No, there is transactional purpose in the atonement (because God has a plan in salvation). Christ died for a people, to actually save and keep them, and to satisfy God’s legal demands for their justification. (Even Generalists admit that Christ is sufficient for all, efficient only for some). The Gospel Generalists here insist that faith is what is needed to make Christ’s atonement efficient (to be sure, the elect are not justified until they believe). However, if it is faith + Christ’s atonement that = salvation then faith becomes a work! Likewise, rather than an active trust in Christ’s merit, faith becomes a self-actualization; merely a passive and presumptuous interest in Jesus’ death. The free offer of the Gospel is not contingent upon the extent of the atonement but the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work (over and under). The offer of the Gospel is not, “Christ [transactionally] died for you;” this only confuses the offer and the extent, blending it with a needy love that leaves people wondering why they must respond. A Particular atonement is a real invitation because every sinner has encouragement to approach Christ for salvation, but based upon the invaluable merits of Christ and His invitation to come (Dort 2.3[1]). We have encouragement to come, not on speculation over God’s hidden will but upon His revealed will. In the Gospel we call all people to repent and believe in Jesus as Lord (Dort 2.5), crying out for mercy on the basis of what He has done. An Historical Perspective The Particularist view was the ultra-majority view amongst evangelicals until the 1700s and until, increasingly (1800s) and then overwhelmingly (1900s), the General view gained the ascendency (largely due to cultural shifts and historic movements such as individualism and experientialism, de-confessionalization, modernism, and post-modernism, etc). The classic Protestant view (Baptists, Presbyterians, Reformed) believed that Jesus died, “for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him”. WCF/1689.8.5; c.f. Dort 2.8a. In recent years there has been a growing interest again in the Particularist view, in part because living in a post-Christian culture has necessitated a robust return to the Bible and theology. Summary What may be said of the extent of the atonement? Transactionally, Christ died for the elect. Offertorily, His death is of infinite value that the merits of His death may be offered to all. Why does this matter?
[1] From 1618–19 representatives from the Reformed [evangelical] world met in Dort, Netherlands to form a response to the Arminian heterodoxy, the Canons of Dort (Dort, concluding subscription). This has served as the Particularist standard on these matters. Comments are closed.
|
Featured BlogsLearn about Jesus Author:
|
