The Fathers Look at the "L" in TULIP

After yesterday's post on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I wish to call upon the witness of history to show that this was not an inovation of the Reformers. What flollows is the reslut of countless hours of study and research.

Polycarp’s protégé, the great Irenaeus of Lyons says, “And when the prophet says: In the humiliation his judgment was taken away, he signifies the appearance of His humiliation: according to the form of the abasement was the taking away of judgment. And the taking away of judgment is for some unto salvation, and to some unto the torments of perdition. For there is a taking away for a person, and also from a person.” 1

The master apologist Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew says, “But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.” 2

Also applicable is this remark by Tertullian, “for selection implies rejection.” 3 Tertullian goes on to say, “For He who once for all appointed an eternal judgment at the world's close, does not precipitate the separation, which is essential to judgment, before the end. Meanwhile He deals with all sorts of men alike, so that all together share His favors and reproofs. His will is, that outcasts and elect should have adversities and prosperities in common, that we should have all the same experience of His goodness and severity.” 4 Notice how Tertullian deals with the issue of “common grace.” There are benefits experienced by the non-elect due to Christ’s death, but salvation is not one of them, as indeed he says here: “Accordingly the true God bestows His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own elect; upon which account He has appointed an eternal judgment…” 5

These further two quotes by Tertullian bear directly upon the Divine choosing and rejecting of some for salvation: “A preference for the one is not possible without slighting the other, and no choice can be made without a rejection. He who selects some one out of many, has already slighted the other which he does not select.” 6 “These were the ingenious arts of ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have ‘to wrestle,’ as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered.” 7

Another writer says, “The Almighty Christ descends to His elect…” 8

“He could bear Judas even to the last with a long patience - could take meat with His enemy - could know the household foe, and not openly point him out, nor refuse the kiss of the traitor.”Note that Cyprian explains how Jesus bore with Judas even though He was fully aware of what he would do at “the last.” 9

“Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills.” 10 This remark can equally refer to Election and Depravity, but it is noteworthy that Irenaeus limits the recipients of salvation to those who the Father wills to save.

Similarly, Basil the Great, understands salvation to be limited as well. He says: “I exhort you, therefore, not to faint in your afflictions, but to be revived by God’s love, and to add daily to your zeal, knowing that in you ought to be preserved that remnant of true religion which the Lord will find when He cometh on the earth. Even if bishops are driven from their Churches, be not dismayed. If traitors have arisen from among the very clergy themselves, let not this undermine your confidence in God…Remember that it is not the multitude who are being saved, but the elect of God. 11

Consider the confession of the holy Church of Smyrna, shortly after the commendation given to it by the Holy Spirit in Rev. 2:9 upon the martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp: 12 “Neither can we ever forsake Christ, him who suffered for the salvation of the world of them that are saved, nor worship any other.” [It is an extract from a letter of the church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.]

Ignatius, as he was traveling to Rome from Antioch to be cast to beasts for the testimony of Jesus, says: “This is the way leading to the Father, this the rock, the fold, the key; he is the shepherd, the sacrifice; the door of knowledge, by which entered Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the whole company of prophets, and the pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ; for whom, instead of a dowry, he poured out his own blood, that he might redeem her.” 13

Surely Christ gives a dowry for no one but his bride.

Even earlier, possibly while St. John was still living, Clement, “whose name is in the book of life,” 14, with the whole church at Rome in his days, in his epistle to the church of Corinth writes:“For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” 15 Here we have a testimony from the earliest days of Christianity, wherein we are told: a. The cause of Christ’s death, viz., his love to us. b. Its object — us, or believers. c. The manner how he redeemed us: by substitution.

Citing again from Cyprian, the holy, learned and famous martyr (ci.250 A.D.) we note that he speaks of Christ’s death thus, “He bare all us, who bare our sins;” 16 that is, he sustained their persons on the cross for whom he died.

In another place he says, “This grace hath Christ communicated, subduing death in the trophy of his cross, redeeming believers with the price of his blood.” 17

Lest doubt pervade concerning the use of the word “all,” see how the great teacher of the East speaks.“Wonder not if the whole world be redeemed; for he was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God that died. If, then, through the eating of the tree” (forbidden) “they were cast out of paradise, certainly now by the tree” (or cross) “of Jesus shall not believers more easily enter into paradise?” 18

Others use the word “all” in the same limited sense. Athanasius says, “He is the life of all, and as a sheep he delivered his body a price for the souls of all, that they might be saved.” 19 All in both places can be none but the elect.

The same could be said of Augustine’s mentor, Ambrose, who writes, “If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for thee, he did not suffer for thee.” 20

In another place he writes, “The people of God hath its own fullness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men.” 21 – In which place he proceeds to declare the reasons why, in this business, “all” and “the world” are so often used for “some of all sorts.”

1. Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho

3. Tertullian, Apology

4. Tertullian, ibid.

5. Tertullian, ad Scapula

6. Tertullian, ad Nationes, Bk. 1, Ch. 10

7. Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics 39

8. Commadianus

9. Cyprian, On The Good of Patience

10. Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

11. Basil, Letter CCLVII

12. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Bk. 4, Ch. 15

13. Ignatius, Ep. Phil. 9

14. Philippians 4:3

15. 1 Clement, Ch. XLIX

16. Cyprian, Epist. 62, to Cæcilius

17. Cyprian, to Demetrian

18. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 13

19. Athanasius, The Incarnation of The Word

20. Ambrose, de Vocat. Gen. Bk 1 Ch. 3

21. Ambrose, de Fide ad Gratianum

Some Thoughts on The Atonement

Limited atonement is the elementary Christian doctrine that states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die for, or redeem, every individual who has or will ever live, but some specific individuals, i.e. His sheep. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men. The power and efficacy of His death through one drop of His blood could have saved a million worlds. But the Scripture does not dabble in "possibilities." But it most certainly does tell us that the scope of His death is limited. He died for some people, and secured the salvation of those people through his death that took away their sin and imputed His own righteousness to them. This is something Christ accomplished on the cross alone.

Scripture does state that he died for "all men" and that God loves "the whole world." In these cases "all men" does not mean every individual inclusively. Nor does it necessarily follow that Christ died for the whole world because God loves the whole world inclusively. Jesus secured the salvation of those for whom He gave his life, and for those God imputes His righteousness upon them. Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for if this were true, all men would be saved.

As the Maxim goes: God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:

1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.

2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.

3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position.

Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus did His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by God. Arminians probably hate this doctrine more than any other. They say that it limits the value of the atonement or degrades the love of God.

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. It is the Arminian who actually limits the atonement. The Calvinist limits the extent of it saying that it does not apply to all persons, although he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race. But the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. To use an illustration from Lorraine Boettner, for the Calvinist the atonement is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only halfway across. So we can see that as a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. “The sin of Adam,” says Charles Hodge, “did not make the condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He wrought.” 1

1. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Ch. 8

A Conviction Against Convictions/

Perhaps the most prolific non-biblical concepts in Christianity today is the so-called “conviction.”

Although, I assume that everyone knows what I mean by this, I will explain it a bit. A “conviction” is a personal belief that God does not want you to do something which is not necessarily wrong in itself, not wrong for others to do, nor forbidden in Scripture.

It is my opinion that “convictions” are the biggest crock even imported into Christianity. As I have observed and evaluated people’s so-called “convictions,” I find them to be little more than a not-so-subtle form of will-worship that fosters self-righteousness and judgmentalism.

In the first place, I am not aware of anyone having a “conviction” against doing something they actually liked. This in itself is highly suspicious. I remember a woman who had an unreasonably strong “conviction” about listening to Christian rock music. The crazy thing was, she hated rock music of any variety even before she was a Christian. She had simply found a way to baptize her personal taste and use it as a way to magnify herself in her own mind. She was more holy and spiritual than these worldly bums at church simply because she had decided that her personal taste was holier than theirs. Frankly, I can’t understand how anyone in the world could enjoy Country Western music; I do not however, assume that this is a great spiritual quality about me which shows my Christian maturity over other believers. That seems as ridiculous as deciding that 7-Up is holier than Sprite.

The drinking of alcoholic beverages is probably the most common subject of these so-called “convictions.” And even there, I have yet to meet someone with this “conviction” who would actually drink if it weren’t for this “conviction.” The “conviction” assumes that something is sinful for you, but how can this be? Where do we find in Scripture the idea that something may be sinful for one person, but acceptable for someone else? Even the people who advocate abstaining from alcoholic beverages realize that although Scripture prohibits drunkenness, it does not actually prohibit drinking a beverage that contains alcohol. Personally, I do not drink, but that is because I can’t get past the smell. When I hear someone recount their “conviction” about drinking alcohol, it is always cast in language that suggests their spiritually maturity and superiority over those who indulge in their “freedom.”

What is this but the Pharisee’s prayer revisited? Paul declares, “Why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29).

This is an example of the “apparent wisdom” Paul speaks of in Colossians 2:23, which does not restrain sin. Indeed it begets pride and self-righteousness. Once you think that there is something you do that makes you to differ from another, you are in serious trouble (1 Cor. 4:7).

The Liberty of a Christian's Conscience

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) -- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Colossians 2:20-22

One of the things Luther and the other Reformers protested was the Roman invention of extra-biblical disciplines and “spiritual” acts. The reason for the protestation was that Rome was binding the consciences of Christians to things not commanded in Scripture. This is similar to Christ’s remark to the Pharisees that they were making traditions more binding than the commandments of God.

Examples of this man-made Romish righteousness would be the prohibition of meat on Fridays, Lenten self-denial, auricular confession, making the sign of the cross, the veneration of images, ad nauseum. It is sinful for the church make people feel that they have violated their consciences by neglected to do these things because Scripture commands none of them, and actually prohibits most of them. This is what our passage refers to when it mentions the man-made commands “do not handle; do not taste; do not touch.”

Included in this also would be the apparent commonsense behind acts like the Pharisaical hand-washing. Certainly, it is wise and healthful to wash one’s hands before eating, but turning this into some sort of moral obligation is merely another form of will-worship – binding a Christian’s conscience to something Scripture neither prescribes nor proscribes. There is also the Mormon abstention from caffeine and Adventist vegetarianism.

Many people have spent a lot of time studying the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws and millions of claims have been made as to the supposed heath benefits of following this diet. It is therefore, erroneously concluded that this is why God enforced this dietary code. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First it contradicts Mark 7:19. Secondly, it creates a serious conundrum: If God prohibited the eating of certain foods merely for health reasons (and it is actually not health to eat these foods) then isn’t it sinful to eat these things? Yet this runs directly counter to all that we have already seen. If Christ declared all food clean, then who are we to pretend to be smarter than God?

Thirdly, it misses the point of the dietary laws. The dietary code was part of a whole system of laws and restrictions, the purpose of which was to set Israel apart as holy. Israel was set apart, holy unto God. The way in which they were marked out as different from the other nations of the earth was through such practices.

For instance, when God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath, this made them different from all the nations of the Gentiles. The Old Testament is replete with “holy” things, from oil to lamps to incense to bells and clothes… all of which were forbidden for personal use. By “holy,” these inanimate objects were strictly set apart for use in the worship of God. That is the point of the dietary law: it made Israel different from the nations, i.e., it distinguished between the holy and unholy (Lev. 10:10).

We can all laugh at such religious legalism as Popish restrictions about meat and marriage or Mormon abstention from coffee and pop. But many Evangelicals are as guilty of such behavior. I have interacted with “Holiness Pentecostal” people and have seen egregious examples of such behavior. I have heard sermons against shaving and sermons against not shaving (Jesus saves and Jesus shaves). I have heard sermons against women wearing pants. Many holiness Pentecostal preachers would preach the wedding ring off your finger. I once heard a preacher virtually declare roller-skating to be the unpardonable sin.

Then, of course, there is the ‘higher life’ teaching of the Keswick movement. By placing excessive emphasis on death to self and personal sanctification, an upside down version of the Christian life is created whereby one’s justification is judged by one’s attainments in holiness. Instead of justification by grace, it becomes justification by sanctification. The Wesleyan preachers who thought they had discovered some new truth about the Christian life were much mistaken because this is nothing more than medieval Catholic mysticism in Wesleyan and Pentecostal garb.

Let me reiterate: Scripture alone is the rule of Christian doctrine and practice. Wherever Scripture does not provide a clear prescription or proscription, we should tread lightly. A Christian should never be made to feel guilty for doing or not doing things not taught in Scripture.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Corinthians 10:29b For why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?

The Wonderful Pastoral Implications of Election

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2

Sinners are wonderfully affected pastorally by the grace and peace election brings in four ways.

1. Humility. A proud Calvinist is a false Calvinist. One can believe in election with the head and not with the heart. Knowing that God chose me to salvation fully aware of how sinful I would be cannot but make and keep me humble. Spurgeon once remarked “I believe the doctrine of election because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me, I would never have chosen Him. And I am sure He chose me before I was born or else he never would have chosen me afterward.” One need simply look back over his past and see the multitudinous sins he has committed then realize that God was fully aware that you would do all those wretched and vile things, yet He chose you anyway and you will be humbled into the dust. Understanding election keeps us from trying to reverse roles with God.

2. Encouragement. Election is an inexhaustible fountain of encouragement. To think that God chose me fully aware of the sinful life I would lead and the sinful heart behind that life, fully aware of my hypocrisy and unfaithfulness – and yet He loved me and set His seal upon me – how can I not be encouraged by this? How encouraging it is to know that God loves me simply because He loves me. I don’t have to produce something to make me loveable.

3. Confidence. Election gives us confidence. Election is solid and unshakeable. It gives us confidence in God and in the Gospel. It gives us zeal and hope of success because nothing hinges upon us, but everything hangs on God’s unchangeable character. Election gives the preacher confidence. No preacher can convert anyone. But because Almighty God has deemed fit to draw His elect through the preaching of His Word, the preacher can be confident that God will perform His good will through his ministry. What a source of confidence this is. Election is not a hindrance to evangelism, as the Arminians say; rather it is a spur to it. All the great evangelists of ages past were Calvinists. During the 16th and 17th Centuries there was not a single great Arminian evangelist. They were all Calvinists. Acts 13:48 proves why this is so.

4. Joy. Election produces joy unspeakable. What joy there is in knowing that you are elect child of God. Someone has said that the joy election brings to believers is their family secret. Election is our security and certainty that we are God’s forever. If that does not make you joyful, nothing will.