Holy Heresy - Part 1

Why heresy is needed in the true Church

At first blush, it seems like a strange statement to say that heresy is “necessary” to the condition of the true Church. But history demonstrates the truth of this assertion. The great ante-Nicene African theologian, Tertullian, wrote, “We ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being ‘approved’.” 1 Even St. Paul warned that heresies must occur. He said, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 2

Perhaps at this point we should define heresy. In the earliest uses it meant primarily the work of schismatic or divisive teachers within in the Church. But by the writing of Peter’s second epistle, heresy had come to mean the false teachings of these schismatic or divisive teachers. This is the meaning which has persisted to the present day. Peter calls their teaching,”damnable heresies.” 3

But even in the Old Testament, God warned Israel that false teachers would arise and that the whole point was to test Israel’s faithfulness to God’s Law. Moses wrote, “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” 4 This means that just because a leader is attractive this is no guarantee that he is led by God. New ideas from inspiring people may sound good, but we must judge them by whether or not they are consistent with God’s Word.

Throughout the history of the Church, heresies have forced us to formulate more clearly what we mean to say by the terminology we employ. In the first four centuries of the Church, the heresies of Marcion, Arius, Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, Eutyches, Sabellius and Pelagius drew forth from the early Fathers the great Creeds of Nicaea, Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon. During the Reformation era, the Remostrants prompted the synod of Dort. This is perhaps one of the greatest services of heresy for the true Church: it forces us to think clearly. We are required by the exigencies of the situations to declare the whole counsel of God not in an “uncertain sound.” 5 One thinks of the great Councils of Nicaea, Orange and Dordt as examples of this process. When error encroaches upon the Church, the Lord raises up an Athanasius, a Prosper, a Luther, a Calvin or a Voetius to help the Church more clearly define what she means by the terms she uses.

This method has always been an effective remedy for dealing false teaching. But since the Enlightenment, men in general have become increasingly relativistic in their view of truth. Unfortunately, this has trickled down into the church as well. Therefore, since the onslaught of Liberalism in the late 1890’s the Church has lost her ability to effectively put down heresy.

No plainer example of this fact exists than the Pentecostal movement and the Charismatic Movement in particular. The Pentecostal movement began a little over 100 years ago in a small church on Asuza Street in downtown Los Angeles. Many of the key leaders of the “revival,” including its primary leader, William Seymour, were adherents of the “apostolic faith” 6 theology, which is pure Sabellianism. Apostolics are known by such names as “Oneness,” and “Jesus Only,” because of their denial of the Trinity in three Persons. They adhere to the Sabellian doctrine that the three are really One Person manifesting Himself in three distinct modes.

The Pentecostal movement lived under the disapproval of mainstream Christianity until the late 1960’s when Dennis Bennett (1917-1991), an Episcopal priest in Van Nuys, California was “baptized in the Holy Spirit,” and began to speak in “tongues.” From there, the Charismatic Movement has spread like wildfire throughout the globe. But surely water cannot rise higher than its source. And surely God cannot condone error. But this is what the Pentecostals and Charismatics would have us believe. If this movement is genuine, then God is in fact endorsing Sabellianism, post-biblical revelations, Buddhistic mind-over-matter “faith,” and even image-worship (the Charismatic movement has spread to the Roman Catholic Church and its equally idolatrous sister, the Greek Orthodox Church). 7

All accounts of heresy and its counterpart polemic since the days of Irenaeus to the present, have given us six main characteristics of heresy, all of which can be seen in the dark from a thousand miles away in the Charismatic Movement. They are:
1. Novelty,
2. Mystical experiences as a source of post-biblical revelation,
3. Mystical interpretations of Scripture,
4. Disregard for and/or belittling of Scripture,
5. Unverifiable claims, and
6. Intimidation of those with opposing views.

God willing,tomorrow we will begin dealing with these marks of heresy in the presented order.

1. Tertullian - The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 1. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3
2. 1Corinthians 11:19
3. 2 Peter 2:1
4. Deuteronomy 13:1 – 4
5. 1 Corinthians 14:8
6. Seymour went to Charles F. Parham’s Bible school. Parham was the founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement
7. Another feature of Pentecostalism, and its daughter the Charismatic Movement, is the prominence of women in positions of authority. Both camps speak strongly of interpreting Scripture literally, but they resort to exegetical gymnastics when they interpret Paul’s prohibition against women preaching. Many of the leaders of the Azusa Street revival were women. Seymour was actually replaced by a woman, Jennie Evans Moore, as senior pastor of his church when he died. Moore held this position until 1936. If we hold to the position that women should not preach, we must assume that theological error is endemic in their teaching, because they are disobedient to Scripture in this case, in the first place. A short survey of Church History confirms this. In most of the heretical movements from those of Paul of Samosata, to Arius, to Montanus, women have been prominent figures. Surely this is not without significance.

Limited Atonement 5

Today we close out this 5 part series of posts on the doctrine of Limited Atonement. That doesn't mean, of course, that I have said everything there is to say on this subject, nor that I will not take it up again many more times in the future. But in closing out this series of posts, we have two more related questions to answer. The questions are as follows:

10. Does regeneration precede faith or is it God's response to our faith?

11. If faith isn't a gift of God, but is a self-generated act, do we not therefore have reason to boast in our salvation against our fellow man who was not smart enough to use his will to generate faith unto salvation?

10. Does regeneration precede faith or is it God's response to our faith?

It is extremely important that we answer this question properly. Despite what we might think at first glance, the answer to this question weighs heavily on the doctrine of the Atonement and its extent. The Arminian position it this: When, by the autonomous use of our free-will, we exercise faith in Christ, God responds to this faith by granting regeneration. Lest we go too far afield without clearly understanding our terms, Regeneration is synonymous with the new birth, being born again (John 3:3). The Reformed position is that God regenerates an elect sinner, whom He has chosen in Christ before the world began, and because of this regeneration, the elect sinner exercises faith in Christ unto salvation. His new birth as well as his saving faith are gracious gifts of God, hence he can say with the Apostle that salvation is by grace through faith.

John1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

In all these passages we note something very important: The new birth does not depend upon human will. A person is either a sheep or not. God has marked out some people in the midst of fallen humanity. He has brought them to new birth; that is, He has regenerated them and given them to the Son. Jesus states in unmistakable terms that He lays down His life - not for goats - but for His sheep. Jesus, in His High Priestly prayer actually says, "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9). Jesus work of redemption has exclusive reference to the elect, that is, to those whom the Father has given to Christ.

Scripture teaches that God has chosen a specific number, the elect, whom He has given to the Son. Christ's death is for them and them alone. Christ died for a particular people and His death secured their salvation.

John 10:15-18 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father

John10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Romans 5:8-10 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

1 John 4:9-10 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Revelation1:4-6 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and was and is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:9-10 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

In this relatively small sample of the Biblical evidence, Arminians make a massive grammatical mistake: They ignore the words like "me" and "us." They are limiting pronouns. When Paul or John says that Christ died for "us," they are tying Christ's redemptive and mediatorial work to their audience. Arminians ignore, and indeed, violate some of the most basic rules of grammar. Whenever we use word "us," we limit whatever is being spoken of to the person speaking and his audience. When I tell my wife, "I bought us a new microwave," I do not expect the neighbors to come over and use it. None of us do. That's how the word "us" works. The New Testament authors repeatedly tell us that Christ died for us, that He gave himself for us, that God sent His Son for us, that Christ is a propitiation for us. Where do they find warrant for such language? From Christ Himself, who says that He lays down His life for His sheep, which the Father gave Him, and He mediates in prayer exclusively for them, based on the Father's acceptance of His perfect sacrifice of Himself for them. I don’t know how it could be any plainer.

Having shown, therefore, that the Bible clearly teaches that God has a chosen people out of the mass of fallen humanity whom He has given to the Son, and for whom alone the Son has died and mediates, we are now in a position to answer our last question, nailing the coffin lid shut on the Arminian objections to Limited Atonement.

11. If faith isn't a gift of God, but is a self-generated act, do we not therefore have reason to boast in our salvation against our fellow man who was not smart enough to use his will to generate faith unto salvation?

The Bible makes it clear that God chose His elect and that Christ atoned for them not "because of works done by us in righteousness" (Titus 3:5). Neither was it for foreseen faith that God chose His elect. For Paul says, "When Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:10b-13). Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16a). These statements seem to echo God's declarations to Israel, such as: "It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he that he swore to your fathers" (Deut. 7:7-8a). "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2a).

So let's clear the decks. There was no foreseen merit in anyone for which God elected him to salvation. Christ is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Election is not about who is better or worse than anyone else. It is all about God's mercy, which He was not obligated to show to anyone, let alone the multitude which no man could number (Rev. 7:9). If the doctrine of Election does not make you humble, then you haven't understood it aright. Limited Atonement is not an uncharitable doctrine, as Arminians like to think. Ephesians 5:25-27 tells us that Christ died for His Church. He did not die for the world. On the Arminian premise of a universal atonement, we would be forced to teach that men should love all women the same way they love their wives. That is sheer nonsense. Christ's love is not an indiscriminate love that is just cast out into the world to be caught by whomever is clever enough to use his own free-will.

We have already established, a couple of days ago, the blatant Biblical teaching that faith is a gift from God. Arminianism teaches that all men without exception have the free-will to use their will to believe in Christ unto salvation. That is why much of their evangelism is what Calvinist's call "moral suasion." So the question we have to answer is this: If a man believes savingly on Christ, what makes him different from the man who doesn't? If it is because of some inherent quality in the man himself, then we have a bigger problem than Arminianism, because Scripture plainly teaches that all men are sinners and that no one is righteous; no one is inherently good. So why does one man believe and another does not believe? The Arminian, when backed into the corner of his own making, has no alternative but to say that one used his will rightly and the other didn't. But, this is precisely what Scripture says cannot be.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." For to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

By denying Limited Atonement, the Arminian has to assert that he does have something of which to boast. He has made himself to differ. If faith is a work, and salvation is by faith, then salvation is of works in direct contradiction to the Holy Spirit's declaration through the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2. There is simply no way around that fact. Arminians frequently claim that Calvinists are arrogant. That proves nothing; all sinners are arrogant. But an arrogant Calvinist is a contradiction in terms. It's like a round square or a five-sided triangle. A "Calvinist" who is arrogant, is no real Calvinist at all. Because Calvinism places the entire transaction of salvation in God's hands, where Scripture says it belongs. Man contributes nothing, for he has nothing to contribute. Arminianism, on the other hand, places the entire outcome of man's final destiny into his own free-will. Arminianism makes free-will so crucial for man, that not even the Sovereign God of the universe can cross it. By insisting on a universal atonement, the Arminian arms man with the power to save or damn himself, with no respect to God's power or will. That seems to this writer like the epitome of arrogance.

One final observation should be made. Arminian complain about Limited Atonement, but their system places a greater limitation, indeed a destructive limitation, on the Atonement. Reformed theology says, with complete Scriptural warrant, that the Atonement is limited, by God's very design, to the elect for whom it is savingly efficacious. Arminianism, however, limits the very power of the Atonement. because in their view, it actually saves no one. Theoretically therefore, it is possible that no one would ever use his free-will and accept Christ, thus every single human being, without exception, would be damned in eternal hellfire. If the Atonement does not guarantee the salvation of anyone, then it guarantees nothing. This limitation destroys the Atonement. It makes Christ merely a martyr who dies for what He believed. How is the death of Christ a display of God's love (as per John 3:16), if it doesn't accomplish anything beyond showing that good people often suffer for what they believe?

Limited Atonement 4

Yesterday we tackled the question of expiation and we saw that Scripture uniformly asserts that Christ's death was expiatory, that is, it actually removed the sin and guilt of those for whom it was offered. Today we will address two more questions directly related to the previous ones. Namely:

8. Does propitiation mean that Christ really removes God's anger against sin, or merely make it possible?

9. Is faith a gift of God or is it a self-generated act?

Our answers to these two important questions weigh in heavily in how we answer the issue of the extent of the atonement. For, if Christ's death really removed God's wrath against the sins of all men without exception, then we must inquire about those who perish. In other words, If faith is a gift from God, why hasn't He given it to everyone? If faith is a self-generated act, and not a gift from God, what need have we of grace, mercy or atonement at all?

Let's address the first question.

8. Does propitiation mean that Christ really removes God's anger against sin, or merely make it possible?

Holy Scripture refers to Christ three times as a propitiation. The references are as follows:

Romans 3:25a (Christ Jesus), whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

1 John 2:2a He is the propitiation for our sins

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The force of the Greek word, hilastherion, refers to the idea of an atoning sacrifice which pays for the guilt of the sin committed, thus removing the just wrath of God against the guilty sinner. If Christ by His death propitiated God and removed His wrath against our sins by satisfying what His justice demanded, - and this extends to all men without exception, and not to the elect alone, then we have a problem. What, in Heaven's name, is any sinner in Hell being punished for? Why is God still wrathful against their sins? If Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to remove His anger, what is? Here we see why Reformed Christians have always asserted that Arminianism is really nothing more that Save Yourself Pelagianism. If really doesn't matter where in the transaction you insert the necessity for human action. Once you put human works into the equation, man is his own savior. Period!

This leads us to the next question, which we have in fact actually address in part in a previous post.

9. Is faith a gift of God or is it a self-generated act?

The Arminian affirms, without flinching, and with a straight face I might add, that faith is a self-generated act. He reasons that if God were to grant anyone faith, then on the principle of fair play, He must grant it to everyone.

The Calvinist position here is quite simple. Charles Hodge says that Calvinism is merely the acknowledgment that God is sovereign in the realm of salvation in the same way that He is in the realm of creation. When we observe, under God's sovereign rule, that some men are born in possession of sight and others are born blind; that some men are born with full intellectual faculties and others are born mentally handicapped; that some men are born free and others born slaves; that some men are born in free nations and others are born under oppressive totalitarianism - in short, when we see God acting like God, disposing of His creatures as He see fit, why should we kick against the goads when we see God acting as sovereign King over men's salvation as well?

Two days ago we cited a lengthy portion of Ephesians 2. Saving this observation till now, I abstained from pointing out that verse 8 tells us that faith is not of our own doing, but it is actually a gift from God. If faith were a work, then salvation would be by works, the very thing Paul denies repeatedly. Philippians 1:29 tells us that it has been granted to us to believe. 2 Thessalonians 3:2 bluntly informs us, "Not all men have faith." And contrary to popular belief, Romans 12:3 does not say that all men have a measure of faith. The wording is "THE measure of faith," which plainly refers to the content of Christian doctrine, not saving faith.

Now let's pause a second and ask ourselves the following: If faith is a gift which not all men are given, what does Christ's death mean for these ungifted people? The answer is obvious: Nothing! That is because Christ's atonement was not for them. Those for who Christ died are given faith, by God as a gift.

John Owen argues this in a way which is absolutely inescapable. He asked the Arminian, "For whose sins did Christ die?" The Arminian answers, "For all the sins of all men." To this Owen replies, "Then why are not all men saved?" The Arminian says, "Because of their unbelief." And here Owen has them over a barrel. He asks, "Is this unbelief a sin or not?" If it is not a sin, then it should be no hindrance to any man's salvation. If it is a sin, it is still no hindrance because, on Arminian premises, Christ died for all sins. If He did die for all sins, then this sin of unbelief is already atoned for. So why should it be a damning sin more than any other sin? This is a dilemma from which the Arminian can never, ever escape.

Limited Atonement 3

Today we wish to continue our subject of the doctrine of Limited Atonement by asking and, God willing, answering two more questions that must be dealt with. The next set of questions is:

6. Did Jesus die for the men already in Hell before He was born?

7. Does expiation mean that Christ removes sin and guilt, or merely make it possible?

6. Did Jesus die for the men already in Hell before He was born?

At first blush, this may seem like an extremely crazy question to ask. However, the Arminian position regarding the atonement leaves us no option but to probe this issue. If, as Arminians insist, Christ died for each and every sinner alike, that is, for ALL men without exception, then He must've died for all the sinners who had been born, lived, died, and went to Hell before He was ever even born. To deny this premise, as asinine as it is, is to put the fatal bullet into the head of Arminianism. Christ either died for ALL men or not. If He indeed died for all men without exception, then He died for the people already in Hell before He was born. If an Arminian wishes to somehow deny this, then he has ceded the argument. Calvinism claims, Scripturally, that the atonement is limited in scope. We might add that Arminianism limits the atonement in power, which is a deadly limitation.

Back to our question. What is the sense in Jesus dying for the sins of men who are never going to have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent? Those in Hell are past the opportunity of receiving the Gospel. So can we say that Christ somehow died for their sins too? This notion is so absurd and blasphemous and injurious to the Gospel that it should pain the child of God to even consider it. If you are not prepared to say that Christ died for the sins of monsters like the antediluvians, Nimrod and Pharaoh, then you cannot claim that Christ died for all men without exception.

This raises a serious issue, namely, what does it mean to say that Christ died for anyone's sins? If Christ's death secured the forgiveness of these sins, or paid to remove the guilt, and therefore the penalty and punishment, then why is anyone in Hell? Even in our fallen, corrupt, sinful world our justice systems abhor the idea of double jeopardy, and we have laws in place to prevent it. If Christ took the punishment and paid the debt incurred by Nimrod's sins, then why is he burning in Hell today for those sins? If Christ satisfied God's justice, why should anyone go to Hell? There is no way around this. This naturally leads us right in to the next question.

7. Does expiation mean that Christ removes sin and guilt, or merely make it possible?

Arminians love to dabble in possibilities. Scripture does no such thing.

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

Romans 11:27 And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven all our trespasses, by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 9:26 For then he would have to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

These Scriptures, as well as a host of many more similar ones, tell us unequivocally that Christ's death was an expiatory sacrifice which removed the sin and guilt of those for whom it was offered. To an Arminian this might seem like a hair-splitting distinction, but it is actually a very crucial question. If Christ's death merely makes it possible for sin and guilt to be removed, what is the catalyst? In other words: If Christ death doesn't actually do it, what does? Hebrews 9:11-28 is a devastating critique of the Arminian notion of a possible expiation. If Christ's death did not actually remove someone's sins, then, as verse 26 says, he would have needed to die repeatedly. This is why goats, bulls and sheep were constantly being sacrificed: their blood did not actually remove sin and guilt. If Christ's death does remove sin and guilt, it removes it from either all men or some men. If it removes the sins of all men, then God is most unjust to send anyone to Hell for sins which are already paid for. If it removes all of the sins of some men, then those men will undoubtedly be saved.

From the mouth of none other than the Lord Jesus himself, we hear the following: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father...So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:11-18, 24-30)

Regarding our topic, Limited Atonement, this passage is definitive, clear, concise and argument-ending. No less than Jesus Christ Himself declares outright that some people are sheep and some are goats. He claims to die exclusively for the sheep and not for the goats. He even goes so far as to make two startling claims: (1) He asserts that His death is not for the goats with which He is arguing. (2) His followers are so because they are already sheep. They are not sheep because the follow Him. I read a statement recently to the effect that a baby cries because it is born; it is not born because it cries.

Furthermore, as noted above, Christ ever lives to intercede for us. An example of His intercession is His High Priestly prayer in John 17. In this prayer we note two important facts (a) Christ refuses to pray for the world and, (b) He prays only for His elect (John 17:9). Anyone who can read that and still insist that the scope of the atonement is universal, is incorrigibly precommitted to his own opinion and is lying through his teeth when he claims to care what Scripture says.

Limited Atonement 2

On the heels of yesterday's discussion, we will move on to address two more questions, the answer to which hang on our answer to the question of the extent of the Atonement.

4. If Jesus does His part and men do their part, do we not have a syncretistic method of salvation? How is this different from Roman Catholicism?
5. If regeneration and faith are gifts of God, and God is trying to save all men, why doesn't He give these gifts to everybody? Couldn't He regenerate all men if He wanted to?

4. If Jesus does His part and men do their part, do we not have a syncretistic method of salvation? How is this different from Roman Catholicism?
The Arminian position is always that God has done all that He can do for our salvation, and now it is up to us to do our part and seal the deal. There is no getting around the obvious implication of such a notion. If this be the case, the salvation is not purely an act of God: man has a large part to play then in his own salvation. Here's the problem with that idea: It isn't true! Scripture nowhere tells us that we have to do our part since God has done His. Scripture everywhere affirms that salvation, from start to finish, is purely an act of God.

For instance:
Jonah:2:9b Salvation belongs to the LORD!
John 15:5b Apart from me you can do nothing.
Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:13 For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Nowhere in any of these passages is it said, or even remotely insinuated that God did His share of the work, now we have to do our share. By saying that He is the first and the last (Isa. 44:6), or Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), God claims control over everything. This does not mean that the "middle" is left open for us, rather it implies that if God controls the beginning and the ending, then, most assuredly He controls everything else that occurs between these two points. So if Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2), that leaves no part of our salvation for us to contribute to. That's why it is called the gift of God.

There is, in fact, no way to water down man's so-called contribution without making man the key figure in the transaction. Billy Graham used to use the illustration of a man dying in the hospital. He is weak and emaciated. He is so tired and worn that he can't even lift up his head and open his mouth, so the doctor does this for him. He lifts the dying patient's head, pries open his mouth and pours in the wonder medicine which will save this man's life. But, and there's the rub, but the dying man must swallow it. He has to do his part or else all the medical acumen and doctor's skill of the physician will all be in vain. That is not how Scripture portrays lost men and women. They are not weak, tired or sick. They are dead. Corpses cannot drink medicine, nor can they raise their hands, let alone resurrect themselves from death. Yet a resurrection is what salvation is. It is a resurrection from the death of sins and trespasses.

The notion that man has to do his part is pure unadulterated Romanism. Arminians should take that under consideration before they start pontificating (pun intended) on the glories of their almighty free-will!

How does this relate to Limited Atonement? If salvation, from first to last, is entirely a sovereign work of God, without the slightest help, assistance, or contribution from the sinner, then only those whom God has actually intended to save will be saved, because salvation is His to dispense as He pleases.

5. If regeneration and faith are gifts of God, and God is trying to save all men, why doesn't He give these gifts to everybody? Couldn't He regenerate all men if He wanted to?

Yesterday we showed that God can save anyone He desires to save. Man's will presents no obstacle to the Almighty. If someone is not regenerated, and therefore saved, it is because God, for reasons of His own, has not willed to do so. As uncomfortable as some people might be with that assertion, Scripture leaves us no alternative. Arminians seem intent on getting God off the hook for things which He doesn't want off the hook.

Before we proceed, we should first make good on our assertion that regeneration and faith are gifts of God. It seems self-explanatory that if this be the case, then anyone who perishes does so because God has not willed to give them these gifts. There is no way to evade the force of that logic.

What saith the Scriptures:
John1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "The to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (The force of this verse hangs on the word "also," implying that Jews had already been granted repentance.)
Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.
James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Again, a small sampling of the Biblical evidence demonstrates that regeneration, faith and repentance are gifts of God. Ephesians 2:4-8 tells us, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

All saving graces flow from the Atonement. This means the Atonement is limited, for Scripture teaches that Christ accomplished an objective redemption for the elect. Jesus by His sacrificial death guarantees the application of His redemption work to the elect. As High Priest He now actively intercedes for His people, applying to the elect the redemption He accomplished in His death. Heb. 7:25

Christ purchased all the spiritual graces for His people. Ephesians 1:3, Eph. 2:8
A. Regeneration: John 1:13
B. Faith: Eph 2:8
C. Repentance: Acts 5:31 Acts 11:13
D. Sanctification: Rom 6:1-14 Election guarantees sanctification. Those who were never sanctified were never united to Christ in His death and resurrection. End of story.

Romans 6:1-11; Gal.2:20; 6:14 Eph 2:5-6 tell us that due to our union with Christ, it can be said of us that when Christ died, rose and ascended to Heaven, we did so as well. To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. Are we to tell unbelievers that they have been crucified with Christ? Can we tell them that they have been resurrected with Christ and that they have ascended with Christa and are now seated in the heavenly places with Christ? Scripture tells us that those for whom Christ did these things are to be viewed as in such a relegation to Him as their covenant Head that they were in Christ in these acts of His. If He did them for ALL men, without exception, then ALL men without exception are crucified with Christ. This is the madness which the Arminian system creates by trying to redefine the Atonement.