SOTERIOLOGY
DOCTRINE
OUTLINE
PART ONE -- OBJECTIVE SOTERIOLOGY
I. GOD'S ETERNAL PURPOSE IN REDEMPTION
A. The eternal decree
B. The motive of redemption
C. Election and fatalism
1. Negatively considered
a. It leads sinners to suppose they are safe in their sin.
b. Against the whosoever of the Bible
c. Confuses God's foreknowledge and decrees.
d. It tends to fatalism and in fact is fatalism,
e. It makes God the author of sin
2. Positively considered
a. The definition of election
b. The purpose vs. the act of election
c. The purpose or end of election
d. The nature of election
e. Some difficult texts
D. The relation of infants to God's plan of redemption.
II. CHRIST'S MEDIATORIAL OFFICE IN REDEMPTION
(three fold)
A. Christ as prophet.
B. Christ as priest.
C. Christ as King
III. THE ATONEMENT
A. The reality of the atonement
B. The terms used
C. The necessity of the atonement
D. The philosophy of the atonement (theories of the atonement)
1. Moral or Unitarian concept of the atonement
2. The substitution theories
E. The extent of the atonement
PART TWO -- SUBJECTIVE SOTERIOLOGY
I. The first works of the Holy Spirit in the individual's
salvation. The drawing of the Father.
II. Conviction of sin.
III. Repentance toward God.
IV. Conversion.
V. Saving Faith.
VI. Regeneration.
VII. Adoption.
VIII. Justification.
IX. Sanctification.
X. Glorification.
SOTERIOLOGY Page2
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION
In the study of Soteriology we are arriving at the culminating point of doctrine, the end and purpose for which all other doctrines are given and tend. Every revelation of each member of the God-head and His specific work for man is for the end of Soteriology -- hence the importance of the study of this doctrine.
There are two great divisions of the doctrine of Soteriology which we shall pursue; first, the basis of salvation resting upon the work of Jesus, in His atoning death; and second, the application of that work In the salvation of the sinner. First would be salvation bought and second salvation wrought -- first the foundation or basis or ground of salvation, second the nature or application of salvation to the individual sinner, We have reserved the work of Christ in His propitiation for this doctrine rather than put it in Christology, as It is so closely linked together with the out-working of that salvation in the individual case of man's redemption. The first part of our consideration of Soteriology shall be taken up with the study of redemption as an eternal decree of God, conceived form all eternity and wrought out in time. In relationship to this we shall consider election and pre-destination and the errors of fatalism end false fore-ordination. The next subject shall be the three-fold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king, as the "one mediator between God and man." The concluding subject under part one shall be a consideration of the atonement. This is the heart of Soteriology.
The second part of Soteriology shall consist of the elements of redemption in the individual sinner, his standing in Christ and his position in Christ -- his conviction, repentance, conversion, regeneration, union with Christ, justification, and sanctification. The redemption accomplished for him is now wrought out in him.
In studying the plan of redemption it Is well to bear always in mind the vast scope of our study. To be right here is to find eternal salvation. Keep in mend that this is not a dry didactic thesis on philosophy or a moral essay, but God's gracious provision for the sinner's greatest need -- salvation from sin and rein-statement into fellowship and relationship with, God. In the study of the atonement of Jesus Christ, "The decrease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem," we are witnessing the accomplishment of the eternal plan of God, , the "finishing of the work which the Father gave Him to do," the only perfect measurement of the love of God -- "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" --, and the measurement of the love God -- "He loved me and gave Himself for me." Every doctrine of the Word of God is bound up in the one great work of Christ, which gave a complete satisfaction to divine justice and opened the "new and living way" into the presence of God for guilty
SOTERIOLOGY Page 3
sinners, giving them perfect exoneration or justification from all sins.
Dryden, the poet, expressed it this way:
"Look humbly upward, see His will disclose,
The forfeit first, and then the fine impose;
A mulct thy poverty could never pay,
Had not eternal wisdom found the way,
And with celestial wealth supplied thy store;
His justice makes the fine, His mercy quits the score.
See God descending in the human frame,
The offended suffering in the offender's name;
All thy misdeeds to Him imputed see,
And all His righteousness devolved on thee."
In this division we are to consider the work of redemption wrought out according to the divine plan by God and accomplished without the conscious co-operation of the sinner or consent of the race for which it was accomplished. With this part of redemption man had nothing whatsoever to do. God decreed it and accomplished it apart from any consent of man. That is why we term it objective Soteriology. The second great division shall be occupied with Subjective Soteriology.-- the individual accomplishment in the individual of that redemption, and it must be with the consent of that individual. God worked out His plan after His own sovereign decree and purpose, and no one could stay His hand. But when working it out in the individual for his own personal redemption, it must be always, with his consent, and his free moral agency --as the fullest away possible to man. It is well to remember this when reading the Scripture which seems contradictory; one speaks of God’s side of redemption, another of man's.
GOD'S ETERNAL PURPOSE IN REDEMPTION
Hero we are interested in the fact that redemption was not a system of restoration which took advantage of circumstances as it progressed, until God finally worked out a contrivance to save man. But contrariwise, "Known unto God are all His works from the creation" and "declaring the end from the beginning." His attribute of foreknowledge makes Him to know all things past, present, and future in one -- intuitional redemption should follow. Being omnipotent and omniscient nothing could stay His plan. This is what we mean by God's plan of redemption and His eternal purpose in redemption. What He has eternally decreed, He is able to perform.
A. THE ETERNAL DECREE
There are many passages of Scripture and many more which infer the teaching that salvation is a thing decreed in
SOTERIOLOGY Page 4
eternity though wrought out in time. Sin did not take God by surprise. God did not make man, unaware of his impending fall and without provision for his fall. After man's fall God did not have to change a lot of things in His plans in order to restore man. But first let us look at a few passages which undoubtedly teach that Christ's sacrifice for sin was divinely decreed of God back from eternity. The plainest would be the ones which speak of Christ as the "Lamb slain from the foundations of the world," Rev. 13:8. See the following passages: Titus 1:2; II Tim. 1:9; I Cor. 2:7. or notice Christ's coming into the world and His death was according to God's plan and will, Acts 2:23 -"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.- Jn. 12:27 - "Now is thy soul troubled; and what shall I say, Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I into the world." The deductions from these portions are easy to arrive at They teach that before God made man or created the world, in His infinite foreknowledge He knew he would make the wrong choice -- and God allowed it; therefore, in the eternal Trinity of the Godhead the everlasting covenant was made, that Christ should come into the world and die in man's stead and save such as should believe from hell, In this sense He is "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." You can see it in the many prophecies of His death, and the types -- such as Isaac, the sacrifices of the Old Testament, and His own predictions.
This much is Scriptural and an object for faith alone. But when we try to reason out the purposes of God's decree and the why of His allowing sin to enter, we run into mystery and can only arrive at a very small answer to the all-embracing question of God's plan of the ages. We do not question His wisdom in the course He has decreed, but the enquiring mind would try to fathom some of His purpose. Here we are at the fountain-head of all inquiry into the why of sin and misery in the world.
Folks have asked, 'Why did God permit sin to enter? Why didn't God kill the devil before the long train of sin and misery could mar His world? Why did God allow fallen sinful Adam and Eve to have children and perpetuate into myriads of generations their own fallen sinful natures and necessitate God's own Son to be smitten because of it?" We want to briefly consider this question as far as we can possibly go.
In God's council to make man, which He knew he would from all eternity, He also knew or anticipated his fall and therefore eternally decreed the perfect sacrifice,
SOTERIOLOGY Page 5
Christ, as His eternal plan of redemption from that fall for both Adam and his posterity. Therefore, He decreed redemption, but the question which has agitated theologians has been "Did He decree sin?" Some have said, "Yes, He must have, or He foreknew it and could have prevented it; therefore, by allowing it He originated it and decreed sin." What a blasphemous conclusion -- to make Almighty God, the only Holy One, the Originator, author of sin. "How could it be sin" we might ask. For sin is the antithesis of God and His nature. But if it eminates from Him, then it is not sin, nor would it bring guilt upon man.
Here again you have the two parallel truths lost sight of by so many: the divine sovereignty of God and the free moral agency of man. The fact that God works out His plan of redemption without man's will but only in His own will shows therefore He can decree it; for He shall work it out. The whole truth is that in decreeing redemption He also decreed that from which sin originated -- "man's freedom of will." In making man a free moral agent, He decreed that freedom to man, which His foreknowledge knew would lead him to sin. But God did not originate it, nor decree sin itself, but the creature with the ability to sin.
The problem then revolves around this proposition. Whenever God decreed to create the world and man, He at the same time -- for reasons within His own sovereign will -- decreed to make man a free moral agent with the ability to sin, foreknowing for certain that he would fall, therefore foreordaining or decreeing Christ to die in his place.
When you try to answer why to this plan, then you reach far beyond man's finite wisdom and arrive at the infinite wisdom of God Himself, For the purpose of His decrees are to be found not in man, nor the plan itself, but in God, Illustration -- In anything man makes you will not find the purpose for its existence in itself, but in the inventor who makes it. So the plan of redemption -- its purpose lies in God Himself, For want of a better name we call it "The Glory of God." "Wisdom is justified of all her children or works." Some-day we shall see the wisdom of God in His decrees, but now they are but faintly glimpsed.
God schemed the whole world plan from beginning to end from all eternity, in one all-comprehending purpose -- not for any reason in the scheme itself -- but for a purpose within Himself. You may glimpse but briefly that thought in Eph. 3:9-10 -- "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the
SOTERIOLOGY Page 6
beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ; to the Intent (purpose) that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God" In short, God's infinite wisdom in decree what He had decreed in His plan of redemption by allowing man to sin and Christ to die, shall be fully justified before heavenly onlookers, by the special work in the church. The redemption of all men who have ever been saved or ever shall be is not the chief exhibit in glory of God's wisdom, but the church holds the highest place--exhibit number one or the "richly variegated wisdom" of God,
So In the church is the prime justification of God's plan of redemption, but not the purpose of it. She is the number one witness to the effectiveness of the plan, but the purpose of the plan is to be found only in God Himself. He didn't work it out for our sakes but for His own "Name's sake." Man is made for God, should live in God, and is redeemed unto God; the answer to the "why" if at all is to be found in God's own person. That is why the nearer a person gets to God, the more the questions fade away and the more he understands of the why of it all.
Nevertheless the Scriptures plainly teach that God did decree that man should have a freedom of will to depart from Himself, through He knew that is exactly what he would do; therefore He decreed His plan of redemption and decreed that Christ would die in substitution for erring man. But we might note that what we call fore-thought is only a human way of saying that God knows all things to come. There is really no succession of thought with God--He knows all things as present perfect intuition, and what He knows He knows eternally.
This consideration of the eternal decrees of God brings us face to face with another much discussed and misunderstood truth which shall occupy our next interest; the thought of predestination and election.
B. THE MOTIVE OF REDEMPTION
By this we mean, Why did God see fit to work out this plan of redemption for man? What was the purpose? Was man lovely or loveable? In human love, love is always created in the heart by the object loved and is increased by contemplation of the attributes and perfections of the one loved. But the great motive of God's provision of redemption of man was His love; and that love was not excited by any lovely attributes in fallen man, nor because he is Loveable, but solely because
SOTERIOLOGY Page 7
"God's plan of redemption" was through the 'love of God." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" Note the many times in the New Testament, and the Old too, how the love of God is always connected to any of His provisions for man.
C, ELECTION AND FATALISM. God's foreknowledge and predestination,
In considering the divine decrees of God and His fore-knowledge of all things in the out workings of His plan of redemption, we are brought face to face with the questions arising out of them of the truths embodied in the doctrines of election and foreordination, with the accompanying errors of fatalism and unconditional election.
The first thing we wish to examine is the teaching of Calvin embodied in a lot of the modern errors taught about election. In brief, it is that only a certain class of sinners are elected to salvation; and only to them is any saving influence ever given to lead them to salvation. All others are lost, not because of any fault in themselves, but only because they are not one of the elect. God has decreed their eternal damnation -- not because of any rejection on their part -- but from eternity had so decreed that they should be lost,
Lot us first establish the fact that this is so taught: The doctrine of unconditional election carries with it the doctrine of unconditional reprobation. The Idea of choosing some, carries with it the idea of rejecting those who are not chosen, Some writers try to hold to the doctrine of unconditional election without accepting the other doctrine of reprobation, but that is impossible. Even Calvin recognized that "I'Iany indeed, as though they would drive away the malice from God, do so grant election that they deny that any man is reprobated; but this they do too ignorantly and childishly for- as much as election itself could not stand unless it were set contrary to reprobation; therefore whom God passeth over He rejecteth; and for no other cause, but for that He will exclude them from the inheritance which He doth predestinate to be His children's," Of man it might be said that they can choose one thing without rejecting all others, but of omniscient God it cannot be said, His choice of one would mean the exclusion of all things,
Calvin says in his Institutes of Religion, section 5, chapter 21, book 3: "Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, whereby He had determined with Himself what He willed to become of every man. For all men are not created to like estate; but to some eternal life and
SOTERIOLOGY Page 8to some eternal damnation is fore-appointed."
Here he teaches that some are specifically created, brought into existence, for the expressed and definite purpose of damnation and for no other, with their own actions or wills having nothing to do with it. The confession of the church of Scotland days concerning these same reprobate creatures: "As for these wicked and ungodly men whom God as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden--from them He not only withholdeth His grace whereby they might have bean enlightoned in their understandings and wrought upon in their hearts, but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion to sin, and withal gives them over to their own lusts, the temptation of the worlds, and the power of Satan, whereby it come to pass that they harden themselves."
Here it is declared that the sinner might have been saved; but to keep him from it, God not only withdraws methods of grace lest he should, but deliberately puts temptation in his way so that he will undoubtedly be lost because he is not one of the elect--not just negatively withhold His grace, but making certain by entrapping him.
The real sum then of the doctrine of unconditional election is this: "All men are not created to like estate," some of the human race coming into existence as elect infants unconditionally and irreversibly destined to eternal happiness, all the rest of mankind coming into existence unconditionally doomed to everlasting damnation. Therefore, strictly speaking, Christ died only for the former -- not the latter - and having no interest in the atonement, their only purpose of being brought into the world is to satisfy God's righteousness in judging sinners. Free moral agency has nothing to do with it. The elect were chosen as elect before the world began and since babyhood could never be lost; the sinner not being chosen can never be saved, no matter how much you preach to him. Some therefore have gone so far as to declare that God judgeth infants who die in infancy according to what He knew they would have done if they had lived; so some babies are saved and some are lost.
Now, there are many modifications and Interpretations of this erroneous theory by modern counterparts. Some of its glaring statements have been smoothed out to fit modern ideas, but to my mind you have to take it all and follow it to logical conclusions, or reject the whole system as a gross lie. It all starts with the false assumptions
SOTERIOLOGY Page 9
of Calvin, "All men are not created to the same estate." Yet, Paul in Eph. 2:3 tells us, "We were all in times past children of wrath, even as others;" and further it is stated, "He that believeth not is condemned already." Yet, the verse they use so much is, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" These same elect did have something laid to their charge before they wore saved.
Some objections to this teaching:
(1) It leads unconverted sinners to suppose they are safe while still in sin. If he is one of the elect, then he shall be saved no matter what; but if he is not one of the elect, then he is not one of the elect, than he is one of the reprobate--and why worry about it? For no amount of worry will change the election. That is the plain conclusion of the doctrine. But they say, "Election is not for man to know, and no one is to know until saved if he is one of the elect." Why then teach it so strongly? Ignorance does not alter any of the facts; there is still no gospel to be preached to the reprobate. There are even some who have been saved and felt God's convicting power, who are still in doubt they could have any assurance that they are elected,
(2) Where is the truth in the "whosoever" of the Word of God? The universal gospel message? "Good tidings which shall be to all people?" How is this so under this system? It shunts up to hell a vast unsaved multitude of sinners and throws the blame not where it belongs upon the sinner, but upon an inflexible decree of God, Christ said, "Ye would not come unto Me that ye might have life." He should have said, if Calvinism were true, "Ye cannot come unto Me, for My Father so decreed it." He puts the responsibility of their lost condition where the whole Bible puts it -- on the unbelief of the sinner and his set will against God.
(3) The third objection to this theory is the confusion on their part of God's foreknowledge with His decrees. They make His foreknowledge a secondary thing emanating only from His decree. He knows only because He has decreed it; and because He has decreed it, they say, the only things God knows is what He has decreed, They limit His knowledge to that without His ability to know what other free beings shall do, Their argument lies along the line of reasoning: "God can only know that which is certain, and it is only certain if God has decreed it,"
SOTERIOLOGY Page 10
Their timeworn argument can be thus phrased, "God knows from all eternity who shall be saved end who lost; therefore, It is fixed from eternity by God, else how could He foreknow from eternity, but only guess it." They lose sight of the fact that God could foreknow a thing without "fixing" or decreeing or originating it. Foreknowledge, like after knowledge, doesn't have to originate anything to know it, My knowledge of what happened yesterday has nothing to do with the cause of it, nor did it cause it to happen. So it is with foreknowledge. The Calvinist argues that God's infallible knowledge of all events involves on His part the necessity to cause them to happen--as though nothing could be known for certain as going to happen, without Himself causing it to happen. God also knows every sin which shall be committed; yet to suppose that He originated it or decreed it in order to foreknow it is blasphemy.
They mean to affirm that God's omniscience is dependent upon His omnipotent power to decree it and perform it. Calvin says, "God foreknow the end of each man because He had so ordained by His decree." Chapter 23, book 3.
Dr. Bonar says, "It is of some importance that we should settle the nature of these two things: predestination and foreknowledge--and ascertain which is first, The question is does God fix a thing simply because He foreknows it, or does He foreknow it because He fixed it? I answer unhesitatingly, that predestination must be the foundation of foreknowledge. God foreknows everything that takes place because He has fixed it,"
Here he advances the absurd idea that only as God decrees can He foreknow, and--the worst idea--that all things which are, are because God fixed it (sin included). What kind of foreknowledge is that? It isn't foreknowledge at all. It is merely a present determination rather than foreknowledge. Illustration: If a man tells me that so and so is going to die on such and such a day of a gunshot wound, I'm amazed at his wonderful foreknowledge; but if I find out he is the one who does the act, then where is the foreknowledge -- but telling me what he was going to do and of his own present determination? The meanest man can have that kind of foreknowledge in a small decree. But no man possesses the type of foreknowledge the Bible ascribes to God, He not only knows His own works, but every choice which shall be made by free moral agents -- and that "knowledge is too wonderful for me,"The Scriptures always base God's foreordination upon His foreknowledge, and not the reverse. Note Rom, 8:29--'Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate." I Pet,
SOTERIOLOGY Page 11
l:2--"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God." And so this system which would require God to decree before He can foreknow tries to measure God's infinite wisdom by puny human standards. Note the Psalmist, l39:l, "O Lord, thou hast searched rue and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off (before I think them). Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways; For there is not a word in my tongue but, lo, Oh Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before and laid Thine hand upon me." Did the Psalmist try to account for such wonderful knowledge along the Calvinistic line? "You know it because You have decreed it." No, he immediately accounts for it: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high -- cannot attain unto it,"
(4) The system tends to fatalism, to the exclusion of human freedom of will. Where can human volition have any part, where everything in his life of good or had is fixed by j divine decree before he is born; and if he could do differently, he should destroy the decree of God Himself. Man is an automaton who must go on in a rut too deco to escape from, no matter the horribleness of the way in which he trod. The fatalist philosophy is incorporated into Christianity--"What is to be, will be," no escape. Remember that what God has willed and de-creed to come to pass shall come to pass, and nothing man can do can prevent it, Yet, within every human being there is the feeling of personal responsibility from his actions. The reminder, "I should not have done that"; but why, if he could not have done otherwise, but was made to do it by unalterable divine decree? The thought, I could have done better is the compunction of every sinner to higher life even if he finds himself so bound by Satan as to be unable to carry it out,--that he has the ability within to choose differently.
(5) There is one more consideration of error in unconditional election which we want to consider before considering the true Biblical doctrine of election. It is the precedence of will, Is God's will first in everything? Does God have to will a thing first for it to happen? One Calvinist (Dr. Bonar) says, "Nothing in the universe takes place without the will of God." But it is asked- "Is His will first in everything?" I answer, "Yes." The will of God goes before every other will. It does not depend upon them, but they depend upon it. Its movements regulate them, The "I will" of Jehovah is the spring and origin of all that is done throughout the universe, great or small, among things animate and inanimate, Everything in the world happens according to God"s eternal arrangements. Nothing takes
SOTERIOLOGY Page 12
place except what God causes to be or permits to be; and whatever happens in time is decreed from eternity. Even the wicked deed of those who crucified the Lord of Glory is said by the apostle "to be determined before by the hand and counsel of God,"
The real question without going over again the same ground brought up this quotation is "Which is first? The will of God in everything?" That His will is first In the conversion of the sinner is evident; but "IS HIS WILL FIRST IN EVERYTHING?" We say, "No." God's will is not first in everything; it is "NOT the spring and origin of wickedness." "Every good and perfect gift cometh down from above from the Father of lights"--but only these. The origin of evil is traced back to God by the Calvinist, though James says, "God tempteth no man, neither can be tempted with evil."
The Scriptures affirm that the will of God for all men is their salvation, II Pet. 3:9--"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Can any man say in the light of that portion that it is God's will and decree to create some men only for hell, and has willed from all eternity to send them there? Rather it is not plain that His will is for their salvation, and their will for their own damnation, Let us put the blame where Scripture puts it, not upon an irreversible decree of God shutting out some from salvation, but upon man's own willful rejection of God's proffered mercy. No twisting of Scripture can make them to teach that God willed and then fixed by divine decree to make a devil out of Lucifer, a sinner out of Adam, and creatures of torment out of men. Scriptures such as Acts 2:23; Li.:25.-28, have reference to the fulfillment of God's plan of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ, rather than a fixing by decree the wickedness of the men who perpurtrated the dead,
Note: There is a modern teaching among Calvinists today who would do away with the objectionable side of Calvinism and who would escape the rightful censorship that logic loads one to make to the doctrine. It says that Christ died for all men all right, not only for the elect, but that God allows His Holy Spirit to give his for the non elect. I can't see much advantage of this theory over ultra-Calvinism, and is not nearly as consistent. Bancroft (page 165) says of the doctrine of reprobation: "The decree of reprobation is simply
SOTERIOLOGY Page 13a decree to do nothing--a decree on the part of God to leave the sinner to himself. The natural result of this judicial forsaking on the part of God is the hardening and destruction of the sinner." He goes on then to softening of the conclusion his Calvinism leads him into, by saying that this forsaking is not duo to any efficiency on God's pert, but by rejection on man's part. But if God withholds the only saving influence of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible certainly teaches there is no salvation without it, then where in is this doctrine relieved of its obnoxious element? Was David's method of murdering Uzziah the Hittite any less murder than Cain's? And yet David only had him placed in a place of danger, hut for the purpose of disposing of him; and God dealt with him for murder. What If I see a man dying; and I have in my possession the means of saving him, but withhold it? Is my withholding a negative sin or positive? Or as Bancroft says, Is it any less positive efficient murder in the eyes of society? Under the law of Moses to see a man s donkey in the ditch and not helping him, made you guilty of killing it. Just withhold the means of saving it, Shall not that seine charge to brought against this doctrine of election and reprobation? The question of man s deserving any of God's grace does not enter into the discussion, nor relieve this doctrine of its idium. To say that 'special influence' is only given to the elect, and the non-elect cannot be saved without it, is to consign the non-elect just as much to hell as to say with the ultra-Calvinist, Christ didn't even die for him at all, but only brought with His blood power over him to send him to hell. The Scriptures teach that God s Spirit is not irresistible, but many have gone down to hell resisting His saving, convicting, influence. Gen, 6:3; Acts 7:57
This will be enough examination of these deductions of Calvinism from the Biblical teaching of election, They outlaw common sense as well as plain Scripture which sends the equal offer out to all men anywhere and everywhere to repent, and to go in to all the world and preach the Gospel, and whoso ever will let him come and take of the water of life freely, and the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, There is no irreversible decree standing in any sinner s way of heaven, but if he is excluded it will be the result of his own free choice of rejection of Christ. We shall in our next section try to determine from the Scriptures a true doctrine of election. We realize
SOTERIOLOGY Page 14
the mysteries attached, to reconciling -- sovereign will and foreknowledge to His allowing man to have freedom of choice even to denying God; yet, the Scriptures give us some light on this great doctrine.
2. Election positively considered.
It is well to keep in mind the subject of a former lecture, that is, that some of the great truths in the Word of God have a Divine side and the human side; and many times the two are not reconcilable, Our minds are but finite and it is to be expected that they should falter and fail in their efforts to comprehend infinite ideas and truth. Some truths are too large for us to understand all there is to know about them, God's Divine sovereignty is one of those truths, And man's freedom of will is another, They are two arcs in a great circle of truth; taken separately we can study them, but to bring them together with effort at reconciliation, our minds fall. There are too many missing complements to the circle for us to get the connections right. But we can accept by faith what the mind is incapable of grasping. Now because election is made up of both the Divine sovereignty of God and man's freedom of will, we find truth here which must be divided and studied separately. We may separate it from the human standpoint, or the Divine; but to try to reconcile them is impossible except superficially and at the expense of one or the other, Here is the fault of Calvinism and Armenianism. Calvinism lights up the Divine sovereignty of God and sees only that, ignoring or explaining away every portion of God's Word which in no uncertain terms makes all of God's dealing with us conditional upon our co-operation and free choice. Armenianism went to the other extreme and made man the head, ignoring the Divine sovereignty of God--made man too much the captain of his own destiny and God too much at the beck and call of men, He based man’s salvation too much upon the efforts of man, without fully allowing for the over-ruling grace and power of God, who can turn "all things to work together for good to those who are called according to His purpose," He who is able to "work everything after the council of His own will,"
With this preliminary thought in mind, we want to first consider election from the human standpoint with its conditional characteristics. We shall at the close of this section briefly consider some difficult texts, and God's side of election,
SOTERIOLOGY Page15That the Calvinistic extreme doctrine of election is erroneous certainly has been seen from Scriptures, as well as from common sense and experience. But that election is taught in the Word of God is evident. What then is the true doctrine of election? We shall of necessity have to be more brief in our consideration than we ought, but we shall try to clarify the Scriptural teaching of election in your minds.
a. The definition of the word election:
The word denotes the act of selection, or separation of one object from surrounding objects. That is the simple real meaning of the word, selection and separation. We use it every day in voting called "elections" or selections of one object over another. Such is the moaning of the verse, "The Lord hath set apart him that is godly for Himself," Here is the word election meant without using the word itself, -- "a setting apart" of a certain class of folks for Himself. So in Scriptures it moans the right to select or choose or separate some.
b. The radical difference between the purpose of election and the actual act of election.
You cannot fail to notice the Important difference between the purpose to select and the act or process of selection. The purpose of selection exists as a reality as soon as you have made up your mind, But the actual process has no real existence until the time when you actually carry out your purpose of selection, Until that is carried out, there is in reality no election, How important this distinction is, To say that God has purposed the election of every saved person from eternity is one thing; but to say that He decreed their election from eternity so that in fact before they are born they had a real election is another thing and runs contrary to some plain Scriptures.
We note an illustration from the election of Aaron to the high priestly office. That God purposed from eternity to make Aaron priest is right; but to say that In fact the election was carried out from eternity is wrong, as can be seen from the story of its carrying out. Num.l7:5 -- "And it shall come to pass that the man's rod whom I shall choose shall blossom,"
Not that God did not purpose before, but actually
SOTERIOLOGY Page 16
not until Aaron was anointed did election take place.
This is the proper meaning of election. It is the actual deed of separation -- "Set apart him that is godly for Himself." -- but not until he is godly, and only the godly; the sinner is nowhere in God's Book called elect. Only the saved bear that name. whenever the Scripture speaks of election as from eternity, it means and can mean nothing else than the election in the purpose of God.
There are a number of elections in the Word of God: angelical election--"elect angels'; national election -- Israelites were Divinely chosen from all other nations as His peculiar treasure and were an elect nation; sacerdotal election--as the case of Aaron and the Levitical priesthood; regal election--the choosing of Saul and after his rejection the choosing of the house of David to rule Israel; mediatorial election--for Jesus the Son of God was styled, "Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth"; then lastly, there is the evangelical election (the one which has troubled folks)--which consists in the separation of those who do believe upon Christ from all the world around them into membership in the Church of Christ,
But In all there is the same principle. God's purpose in election is one thing and the actual election to the office of elect is another, See Eph, 3:11. Here the eternal calling of the Church to display the "manifold wisdom of God" is given as existing in the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ. The very name Church is "the called-out ones," and the words of Christ, "I have chosen you out of the world." Now then, note: Election is from eternity in the mind of God in purpose, and we shall note at the close of this discourse that His fore-knowledge is the basis from which He purposes His election, But the actual election is when the sinner is saved, separated from the rest of the sinners who are non-elect. That act of separation and making godly is His election, if you please, and now--and not until now--the Scriptures refer to him as one of the "elect," God is the sole source of this election, He is the sole agent. To Him belongs all the credit and glory. No sinner would ever find God without God's influence and drawing him, and God
SOTERIOLOGY Page 17does the separating or electing. God does the choosing or selecting; but as we shall see later, He does It by His foreknowledge. (Here we arrive at mystery again).
c. The purpose of election, or the ultimate end which God had in view in election.
There is of course only one grand end as in all that God has ever done or ever will do--it is the glory of God, There could be no other end than this, spoken of in the Bible as "for My own Name's sake," I Cor, 10:31.
While this is the overall grand end and purpose in election, there are two subordinate ends, One has to do with the state of the subjects of election, and the other with their character. In their state--to separate them from the world under the protection and daily cleansing and sprinkling of the blood of Christ; I Pot, 1:2-- Elect unto the sprinkling of the blood of Christ," and II Thess, 2:13 "God hath from the beginning chosen you unto salvation." That is His purpose from the beginning.
In their character--they are elected unto obedience, I Pet. 1:2; or Paul in Eph. l:4 -- chosen that they "should be holy and without blame before Him in love." Called or elected unto salvation and perfect standing before God as to their state; and holiness of character as to their daily character, ALL THAT ?~ MIGHT BE GLORIFIED BY THE DISPLAYAL OF HIS UNMERITED GRACE UPON UNWORTHY HELL-BOUND CREATURES.
d, The nature of election.
That there is. a point of similarity between all of the elections spoken of in Scripture is assured; but that they arc all one and the same in nature, no one would venture to say. Therefore, to alight upon the reference by Paul of God's election of Israel in Rom. 8 and 9 for a perfect outline of His election of the Church is folly. Some of God's elections are unconditional, as the election of Israel as a nation unto Himself. Nationally, it was unconditional, but individually, conditional- - "for they are not all Israel which are of Israel" -- His election of David to kingship over Israel, This line of thought can be further traced, and we may have occasion to refer to it again at the close. But
SOTERIOLOGY Page 18
what then are the distinguishing features of the election of grace now? And these conditions were not a part of the other elections.
To understand the nature of this election of grace, it is necessary to understand what two hindrances there are to election, and how election removes these two hindrances out of the way.
What hindrance is there to the daily enjoyment of a sinner to the sprinkling of the cleansing blood of Christ? IT IS THE STATE OF CONDEMNATION IN WHICH HE RESTS BECAUSE OF HIS UNBELIEF IN THE SAVING WORK OF CHRIST. The second hindrance keeping him from believing in Christ's atoning work for him is his unregenerated nature, which is at enmity with God and voluntarily rejects God's testimony. Here is the two-fold hindrance to election: 1. his state of condemnation and his 2. evil nature which keeps him there, God's election would remove those two hindrances, and in its nature it does just that, To remove the condemnation alone wouldn't be enough--that is justification. To remove the evil heart of unbelief would not be enough--that is regeneration. Both of these two arc acts of God alone. But election is both of these two: by that act of election he is removed from under the condemnation of his sin and the enmity from his soul by the implanting of a new godly nature! This is true and proper evangelical election. Here it is different from all other Divine elections, The elect angels never even fell, but are elect only because they never fell.
How different their election is from ours! Aaron's election consisted merely in God choosing him from among all others to fulfill the priestly office, requiring no greater change In his nature to do it, God's choosing of David to be king above all others was such an election, based upon God's foreknowledge that he would be a man after God's own heart, And Jesus needed no work of grace in His own heart to be elected by God to be the only mediator between God and man, But the election of grace goes far beyond God's election of other men to their positions, The elect Church is justified and sanctified, Summed up--The election of grace is the removal of the evil heart of unbelief and the condemnation of guilt from the sinner, by the means of justification and regeneration, both accomplished
SOTERIOLOGY Page 19
only by God; hence, in truth, "It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy." This truth of election may further be Illustrated by the fact that it is not declared as being something finished In the transaction from eternity, but as being accomplished by the use of means,
In II Thess, 2:13, Paul very distinctly says that we are "chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." It is not chosen to sanctification of the Spirit, but chosen to salvation --through sanctification of the Spirit. It is not chosen to the truth, but to salvation through the belief in the the truth of the fact that what God does in time He purposed from all eternity to do, But the actual election according to this verse is only be the means of the work of the Holy Spirit when the truth is believed, Yet, that truth cannot have been believed by the sinner from eternity, nor can the sinner be said to have been sanctified by the Spirit from eternity.
Here is the imperative of the gospel appeal to sinners, God has provided the means for man election entirely apart from man, without any aid from him. The sacrifice of Christ was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was given, and the good news or the "Truth of the Gospel" to be believed had been sounded out to the sinner; all things are ready for the immediate election of the sinner, But inasmuch as the sinner is a free agent and is graciously furnished by the Holy Spirit with everything that is necessary for the unbelief of the truth", it is as this point that he is called upon to do his part, to accept "he truth of the testimony of the Spirit" about Christ, But the sinner cannot be elected -- "belief of the truth," only damning sin in the world is unbelief (apart from the unpardonable sin, which is after all a form of unbelief) Christ said so, Jn.3:18; 16: 8,9
As long as he refuses to believe the truth, he cannot be elected unto Christ, separated from the world of sinners. There is no election out of Christ, Paul says, "elect in Christ," As long as he remains out of Christ he is not elect, nor can be, And when the apostle speaks of "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world," he is referring to the election in purpose. God's purpose to elect from all eternity. Hence, the plan of salvation is an eternal plan. This purpose to elect was based on the infallible foreknowledge of God as to how undecreed man should choose, peter calls it "elect according to the foreknowledge of God," See Rom, 8:28-30 (interesting -- all in the past tense.) But, remember, that His foreknowledge does not decree anything,SOTERIOLOGY Page 20
This idea of election is consistent with the whole Gospel, which is for every man. It throws the blame for man's impenitence where it belongs--on man and not God. It shows that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to aknowledge of_repentance, and that Christ died for all men.
I know there are still difficulties--and we admit them, laying them to our own ignorance and finite minds, rather than lay injustice or iniquity to God. But it seems to me that the difficulties of ultra-Calvinism are greater than ours.
How can the Calvinist ever explain, for instance, this verse of Scripture, still adhering to the plain meaning of words--and yet keep his idea that God sends men to hell by a fixed decree from eternity and that man's election to salvation is fixed from eternity? II Pet.1:l0 -- "Wherefore the rather, brethrens, give all diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things ye shall never fall." If a man's election is settled in eternity past by Divine decree, how can any man make It more sure? It would be blasphemy to try to add to the work of God. No one could make It less sure or more sure. The Calvinists have lamely said, "He meant make themselves sure," But that isn't what he says at all. It's your calling and election you are to make sure. Taking that we have said so far as the basis, you can easily see what Peter meant. If it's by means we are elected, then to assure the means would be to assure the election, It is thus we are to "work out out own salvation with fear and trembling ." But also remember "it is God that worketh in you both to will and do of His good pleasure.
(5) Some difficulties, and perplexing passages of Scripture.
SOTERIOLOGY Page 21
His dealings are based upon what He knows that individual shall do, even as we deal with a person on the basis of what ho has done. We have nothing in human faculties to compare with that, The other difficulty hinges upon the Divine sovereignty of God. How He can do everything after the counsel of His own will, yet allow any other free will to exist, Theologians have admitted the difficulty and stated it without attempted explanation as "Thy self-imposed limitations to Thy Sovereignty." In some manner His sovereign will provides that man shall have a will which can be set in rebellion against His own, And yet, when we view any of God's works, whether in providence or redemption, from the Heavenly viewpoint we always see His Divine sovereignty without any human ability to stay His hand. As Paul says, "Has not the potter power over the clay to make a vessel unto honor or dishonor?" That whole portion of Romans 9 views God's actions from the Heavenly viewpoint and shows God's untrampled sovereignty. It is a portion for faith and not for reason. ~o s hail refer to it again. might catch glimpses of bright light upon God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, but my vision is so limited and there is infinitely more than I can see, until it is no wonder I meet mystery and find difficulty reconciling it with mere human things. The difficulty hero is not one for faith (for faith knows God is too great to be encompassed by human reason), but for reason because of inadequacy.
SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES:
(a) Ex, 4:21--It seems harsh to the unconverted superficial reader to read that the Lord says "I will harden pharaoh's heart." God knew how Pharaoh would receive the request of Moses to let Israel go, but Ho did not fix by decree that was the only way they could receive it, We see the same effect every time a gospel message is preached. (How many sermons, preached for the salvation of the sinner, have the actual opposite result of hardening his heart because he rejects it,) The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay. This verse is quoted in Rom. 9:17,18. God raised Pharaoh up to show abroad to all the earth His power. Pharaoh was so placed that he might have been the greatest benefactor to God’s chosen people, but he rejected that opportunity--he became a "vessel unto wrath", but still showed forth the power of God; and His further glory He displayed upon His vessels of mercy--Israel.
The statement that God would harden Pharaoh's heart or the Egyptians' hearts does not mean that
SOTERIOLOGY Page 22
God would do so in spite of what they believed, or no matter in what way they received God's message to let Israel go. But in His foreknowledge He knew how they would react to the message, and He forewarns His servant Moses as to how he would be received by pharaoh, In order to further prove to Israel His power and provision for them, He further hardened pharaoh's heart that Moses might perform the miracles God gave him to do. That is all that is meant; to read into the passages any fixed eternal decree of God to make Pharaoh a wicked man, is to read into the Scriptures some human philosophy.
(b) Another Scripture which would seem harsh to the natural mind, unacquainted with the full truth of the Scriptures is to be found in Rom. 9:13-23.
They say it shows respect of persons for God to say, "Jacob have I chosen but Esau have I rejected." That is in His purpose to make a nation like Israel. Esau might have later been saved. God was not speaking of eternal salvation, but only of His purpose of electing a nation to boar His name. The promise made to Abraham, then Isaac, and then Jacob or Israel, was renewed by the same sovereign freedom of action on the part of God to Jacob rather than Esau. God reserved the freedom to choose whomsoever He willed to head the nation of promise. God was not obliged to choose either one, and did so by no derived right but by virtue of the fact of His own sovereignty. But In reading the history of the two men, who can deny which was the better fitted for the place? God could see something in deceitful Jacob to fit him to be the father of Israel, and could see the nature of Esau in selling his birthright--or despising it as not worth the price of beef stew--as not worthy of the place. God acted in His choice with Divine freedom, but certainly His foreknowledge was the basis for it. It is this that Jesus called Peter a stone, when He knew he would deny Him; but in His infinite foreknowledge He could see the Pentecostal preacher. It is thus God can see the perfected saint in the called sinner. This exposition of Rom, 9:13 can easily be proven when you consider the verse Paul is quoting from in Mal.1:2--there the reference is not to merely the two men, but the nation of promise.
With this in mind there is no difficulty in understanding the rest of the argument which Paul is giving to the Jews who thought they had a chosen corner of Divine grace, and that God owed them salvation because of their physical lineage back
SOTERIOLOGY Page 23
to Abraham. This and this alone is what Paul was dealing with in this portion and not with any so called eternal decree to send some to hell while to divinely pick a few for salvation. He quotes Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." And likewise, "whom Ho willeth He hardeneth," But who would dare to say more than that and say that there is unrighteousness with God, by saying that He willeth to harden any who would be penitent. His foreknowledge enables Him with infallible justice to deal with all men with infinite freedom of choice, but also according to that individual's freedom of will also. In reading the rest of the argument to verse 23, keep it well in mind that Paul is not hero arguing to any eternal unconditional election by Divine decree of any man's damnation or salvation, but is arguing with Israel and their Divine election, as a matter of perfect freedom on God's part and--far from being unconditional--depended upon their obedience. The Jews had lost sight of the great truth of God's sovereign freedom to do as He willeth, even to grafting in the wild branch of the Gentiles and cutting off the natural branch of Israel. They had thought that when God covenanted with their fathers to make them His chosen nation, that He had surrendered His freedom and sovereignty and was bound to save them, no matter how they acted (pretty close to some modern-day electionists.) They had long been the only vessel of honor upon the earth, and the Gentiles the vessel of dishonor, Paul here is only reminding and warning thorn that God has retained the right to reverse this purpose according to the acceptance or rejection by the Jews, The same dealings may be seen in individuals, God has gifted some wonderfully, while others not so much--some ten talents, some five, some one, -- surely giving according to the wisdom and foreknow-ledge of God as to who would use Them wisely. Yet "the Spirit giveth the gifts severally as He willeth" -- freedom to act. But He always acts righteously and perfectly wisely in His choice; If that election is squandered by the receiver, then how many times has God dealt with them as Ho did with Israel, before reversing His choice, Paul said, "I keep my body under subjection, if least having preached to others I myself become benched,"
(c) With a 11 the preceding thoughts in mind regarding election we might consider briefly the Scriptures where the word "predestinate" occurs in the Bible. The word "predestinate" occurs only four times in the Bible, twice in Romans eight and twice in the book of Ephesians, It means literally "to mark off beforehand." Its literal meaning has to do with the purpose of
SOTERIOLOGY Page 24
God rather than any former decree. Such may be seen from one of the references, in Eph.
In Rom. 8:29, we can see that the reference is to saints, not sinners, and Is based upon God's foreknowledge. Because God can know how each free moral agent shall choose, He can in His Divine purpose predestinate that one who shall choose Christ to be conferred to the Image of His Son, Do not divorce verse 29 from verse 28. The 'for' links the two, The "called according to purpose" (leave out the "His") -- what purpose? God's purpose in election from eternity past to call out a people for the name of Christ to be conformed to His image and finally glorified, after being justified from all things. That is the meaning of this text. Those who are the called-out ones, according As God purposed from eternity, are predestinated -- purposed of God to be like His Son, And it is these elect ones, verse 33, which cannot be charged with anything, for God has justified them.
Note in Eph. l:5, going from verse 4--"chosen in Him before the foundation of the world unto holiness"; "predestinated unto the adoption of children," Now note: "according to the good pleasure of His purpose, It is the sovereign will of God to so choose. We do not rob God of His infinite sovereignty. But in His infinite sovereignty He has willed that I should have the power to will.
This same sovereignty is seen in verse 11 of Chapter 1: "in whom (in Christ again; there is no such thing as election out of Christ) we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own Will," There is all the truth about predestination. What could man do without God willing it to be so? He must will man the ability to deny God Himself, and we see that everywhere. But He has also willed or purposed for those in Christ to have an eternal inheritance.
"The very most we can say of predestination in the light of every Scripture which allows man to have the moral responsibility for his own actions, is that every man who is eternally foreseen as being in Christ, God has predestinated unto eternal life; and everyone who is eternally foreseen as being out of Christ is predestinated to be lost." Foster
SOTERIOLOGY Page 25
We cannot go any further than that in understanding the Divine side of election and predestination. We must always remember that God in His exercising of His sovereign will included in that plan for all the ages the right of man to choose for himself life or death.
(d) The relationship of infants to God's Plan of Redemption.Since infants possess a living soul, yet the condition of that soul cannot depend upon any choice or responsible action of itself, we must make some place In our theology for considering the case of that infant dying in infancy. We consider that probably more than half of all humans born into the world die in infancy or before they come to the age of accountability; they form a vast multitude of human souls which must be accounted for. Dr. A. B. Simpson estimated that 60 generations have gone by since the time of Christ. I think that to be a little high, but he goes on to say that out of that only 10,000,000 were saved adults out of each generation. So 600,000,000 saved adults have lived since the time of Christ, but thirty billion infants have died during the same period, p. 171, Christ in the Bible, Matthew, IF his figures are close there are thirty billion human souls to account for. Are they saved or lost?
(1) The early Pogagians tried to account for them by saying that they were neither saved or lost. They are not included in Christ's atonement because they didn't need it, These denied hereditary sin, So they needed no salvation, for nothing in them needed saving. In other words, they would form a vast class all by themselves and are not included in God's present plan of redemption, Of this the Scriptures say nothing. But they do say much about the hereditary sin, "In sin did my mother conceive me,"
(2) The early Calvin method of dealing with the question is to bring them in under the same condition as adults, save that they do not go through repentance and believing. Based upon the false idea of election and predestination, some infants are elect and others are not elect. Those elect infants are saved because of the fixed eternal decree of God, making them one of the elect, But the non-elect, being not decreed unto salvation, are lost, even though dying in Infancy, There is no authority for later daySOTERIOLOGY Page 26
Calvinists to assert that “the very fact that one dies in infancy is proof that ho was one of the elect." That is wishful thinking or hopeful thinking, inconsistent with the doctrine of election taught by Calvin, The Dort confession say hopefully, "Godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." But isn't that inconsistent with their own theory that election is not conditioned upon any human actions whatsoever? Why should all infants of godly parents be sure of election, while the infants of ungodly ones not?
Many modern believers in Calvinism repudiate the idea of infant damnation, and some go so far as to deny that Calvin ever so taught. But let us see of he did. To be consistent with his own doctrine of eternal election stated by Book III, 21,5: "And we call predestination the eternal decree of God whereby Ho determined with Himself what He would have to become of every man. For men are not created (brought into existence) to like estate; but for some eternal life and for some eternal: death is appointed." Calvin must have believed In elect infants, and contrariwise, non-elect or reprobate infants, If all men are not brought into this life or born or "created" to like estate, then the time element has nothing whatsoever to do with It. They are predestinated back in eternity so that from the moment born they are either saved or lost, according to this theory of election. Whether then that infant dies in infancy or lives to a wicked old age has nothing to do with its salvation or election, It is elect at infancy, not at adult life. If Calvin means anything, he means that men are elect at infancy. "All men are not created to like estate" All men are not born or brought into life in the same election: some are specifically brought into existence for eternal life; and some are born only for damnation, from the time of their creation. He had to believe in infant damnation to be consistent with his false idea of election.
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 21,21: "If those therefore TO WHOM THE LORD THAT VOUCHSAFED HIS ELECTION (note -- only then those who are elected, which excludes those not elected), having received the sign of regeneration (what is the sign of regeneration he is talking about? He tells you in the whole chapter
SOTERIOLOGY Page 27
written in defense of infant baptism--those who have received the sign of infant baptism. What of those who haven't?), depart this life BEFORE THEY GROW UP, He reneweth them by the power of His Spirit. What is this whole teaching, but the consistent application of his whole doctrine of election by unconditional decree from eternity to infants? He teaches here that only infants to whom God vouchsafes His election, by the sign of regeneration--which is infant baptism, are renewed by the Spirit, or saved. If you doubt this to be his meaning, look further in his teachings. In this same chapter on infant baptism he says, "They are embraces in the covenants from womb, By what right would we omit them to baptism, except they are heirs of the promise" For unless already before it the promise of life pertains to them, he would profane baptism who would give it to them," He doesn't inform us how one is to know which ones are heirs of the promise so we would not profane the rite of baptism by baptizing the wrong infants.
Note also Book III, 23,6: "Therefore even from their mother's womb they are born the children of death who by their destruction glorify His name." In the next division he says that God made them in that lost estate because He foresaw their wickedness which was to Come. God made them wicked because He foreknow that they would be wicked, Fine reasoning !
The first Westminster Confession was a lot more Calvinistic than all later American editions.The first Westminster Confession X:3 reads: "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated," That can mean nothing else but that non-elect ones are not, The American Supplement of 1903 added these words to their credit: "It is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost, We believe that all dying in Infancy are included in the election of grace (can't get away from Calvinism), are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, This is saying again, "All infants dying in infancy are saved because the very fact that they die in infancy shows that they are of the elect, Zwingli was the first to propound this theory: "All elect children who die in infancy are saved, whether they be baptized or not, whether pagan or Christian; and further, all who die in Infancy are elect, since their early death is a token of God’s peculiar mercy, and therefore of their salvation"--Vol. II, Infant Salvation, p. 1080, Sehaff-Herzog Encyclopedia,
SOTERIOLOGY Page 28
Peter Martyr and Spanheim asserted the certainty that the infants of all unbelievers were lost since their parents did not have faith. Some like John Owen went a little farther and said maybe some infants of unbelievers were saved, since the faith of grandparents or, even more, remote ancestors may constitute children as the off-spring of believers," The Dort theologians said, "That there is an election arid reprobation of infants, no less than adults, we cannot deny, In the face of God, who loves and hates unborn children"- Acta Synod, Dordr, Judic 40 Swiss theologians.
The Presbyterian Fundamentalist Organ of the Dallas Theological Seminary frankly admits that Calvin taught the damnation of some non-elect infants, while giving hope to some that their children wore among the elect, Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. l944, p. 479: "Calvinism has taught the reprobation of infants in some instances, yet all the while strengthening the doctrine of free grace which allows for the salvation of all dying in infancy."
(3) Even worse than the early Calvinistic creed concerning infant salvation is that first held by St. Augustine and adopted by the Catholic Church and held on by the Lutherans,--the so called sacramental regeneration: that only those baptized by the church are saved, Only baptized infants therefore are saved. Saving grace, they say, can only be communicated by the church through the sacraments. Therefore all heathen children dying unbaptized are lost.
St. Augustine said, "Let there, be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our opinion, without Christ's baptism," and "It may therefore be correctly affirmed that such infants who leave the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation"--Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, p. 23,28,71.
(4) The great burden of the testimony of most Protestantism is the absolute salvation of all who die in infancy, We have already seen the amended Westminster Confession, giving the doctrinal bi-point of the American Presbyterian Church. Dr. Hodge (Chas.), one of the great Calvinistic theologians of the 19th century, in his work of 1871 wrote: "The common doctrine of evangelical Protestants--all who die in infancy are saved," Systematic Theology, Vol. 1:26.
Strong, the outstanding Baptist theologian,
SOTERIOLOGY Page 29said, "The descriptions of God's merciful provision as co-extensive with the ruin of the fall also leads us to believe that those who die in infancy receive salvation through Christ as certainly as they who inherit sin through Adam" -- A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 661, 662.
Foster, Systematic Theology, spokesman for the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, teaches emphatically that all infants dying in infancy are saved. p. 540.
(5) The Scriptural basis for believing in the salvation of infants, It is difficult to arrive at a complete understanding of what the Scriptures teach concerning the salvation of infants. This is due to the fact that the doctrine is not clearly stated in any one place, but is dealt with only collectively as with the whole race, This is understandable. The child has no rational choice--its sin is not because of individual choice, but inherited; so its redemption is not because of individual choice, but contained In the universal purchase of the human race by the atonement of Christ. Therefore there are no particular verses explicitly stating that all children are saved, so stating it as a doctrine, But is is taught in passages which show Christ's atonement as covering all men, implied in many portions showing God's care and love for children, and understood in other portions, showing the state of children departed.
(a) Infants are born into the world with sinful natures and need a Saviour, The inherited sin is punishable, carries condemnation, and guilt; therefore, they must have part in the atonement to be saved, But since they cannot use their wills to accept the provision of grace in Christ, they are born under the "sovereign protection" of Christ's sacrifice, until such a time as they may exercise free moral agency, In this sense Christ's sacrificial work is said in the Scriptures to cover all men, Some texts:
I Cor. 15:32--"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The primary meaning here is the assurance of a resurrection for all men, some to everlasting life and some to ever- lasting contempt; but in one sense it shows that at one period of man's existence the Atonement covers him. This is seen more clearly in two other texts--
SOTERIOLOGY Page 30
I Tim. 4:l0--"We trust in God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe." The sufficiency the gospel is, saves all men when in infancy, in procuring redemption if they will believe, in removing the obstacles in the way of their salvation, and last, in staying the sentence of hell until they can be saved.
Rom, 5:18 (in particular, though, the whole tenor of the chapter) would show the covering of Christ's atonement is just as universal as the condemnation brought on by the first Adam, If the condemnation of the first Adam could pass on the innocent childhood the condemnation of guilt and work of the Second Adam, His "obedience" bring upon the same, Thus theologically, infants must be covered by the atonement of Christ and saved to carry out consistently the whole tenor of the Scriptures and the complete work of Christ,
Strong, in, Systematic Theology, outlines this thought this way:
(1) Infants are in a state of sin, need to be regenerated, and can only be saved in Christ,
(2) Yet compared with those who personally transgress, they are recognized as possess of relative innocence and of submissiveness and trustfulness, which may serve to illustrate the graces of Christian character,
(3) For this reason they are the objects of special Divine compassion and care, and through the grace of God are certain of salvation.
(4) The descriptions of God's merciful provision as co-extensive with the ruin of the fall also leads us to believe that those who die in infancy receive salvation through Christ as certainly as they inherit sin from Adam"--.pp. 661-662.
(b) The attitude of Jesus Himself while upon earth certainly In clear tones teaches the salvation of infants, He uses their character as an illustration of the graces necessary to a Christian, Matt, 18:1-6, Note in particular vs. 10,11. He links them with the very purpose of His mission.
See also Matt, 19:13-15 and the words, "For of such is the kingdom of heaven," In the light of that portion alone bereaved parents can take
SOTERIOLOGY Page 31consolation that that infant is saved and gathered into the arms of the Great Shepherd who leads His sheep, but carries the lambs in His bosom.
(c) There are a few verses even from the Old Testament which Indicate that infants are saved, Just to note some--the incident of David's son born out of wedlock, a child of adultery. Though God forgave David his sin, yet He must needs take the child in death, David's consolation is a beautiful thing. II Sam. 12:23 -- "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." David was a saved man, assured of his pardon; he certainly didn't mean the grave, but the place of redeemed souls, Also II Kings 4:26 --Shunamite says it is well with the child even though dead.
II. CHRIST’S MEDIATORIAL OFFICE
We have in our study of the doctrine of Christology studied the wonderful personality of Jesus Christ as the God-man --very God of very God and very man of very man, containing in one personality the union of His Divine nature as the second Person of the Holy Trinity and His true humanity, born of a natural mother, conceived of the Holy Ghost as His Father. This was entirely for the accomplishment of redemption. "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved," Now it is in this work of redemption that Christ fulfills His mediatorial office as the only Mediator between God and men; I Tim. 2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," It is as "the man" Christ Jesus, that Christ sustains His office as Mediator, He had to partake of our nature if He is to carry our burden of sin, to expiation on the cross and lift us from sin, starting a new race of redeemed men, and be a faithful high priest, able to be touched with the feelings of our infirmities.
Man in his estranged position from God needed a mediator, or daysman, to come in between and bring reconciliation. In His redeeming work on Calvary, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself." God, "satisfied with that sacrifice, is reconciled to the world." Now the ministry of
SOTER IOLOGY Page 32
reconciliation is to get sinful men reconciled to God. That is the message we bear: "Be ye reconciled to God" -- II Cor, 5:19,20, also verse 18. That is the ministry of a mediator, As Prophet, Christ is the wonderful Logos bringing God's message of instruction to us. As Priest, He offers the acceptable sacrifice to God for our sins, even His own blood. As King, Ho brings to completion the work of redemption and reigns over the kingdom of redeemed men,
1, Christ as "the Prophet."
Moses was the first to predict the prophetic office which Christ should fill, Deut, 18:18,19--"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee," Christ so called Himself, Matt. 13:57-- " a Prophet is not without honor save in his own country." Peter in Acts 3:22 quotes Deut. and applies it to Christ, So Stephen does in Acts 7:37. A prophet taught, predicted, and healed, How wonderfully Christ fulfilled these things! As Prophet, Christ was the express revelation of the Image of God, He came to reveal God. How as the Lagos of John 1, Logos is conveyance of thought--speech, word spoken; Christ was the literal spoken Word of God, God’s last message to man, See Heb.1:1 "God who at sundry times and divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by (or more accurately tin?) His Son," Christ is the perfect revelation of God the Father, so that He could say, "He that hath soon me hath seen the Father."
In the O. T. a prophet was one who literally communicated between God and man to make the will of God known to man, God again and again refers to "rising early and sending the prophets unto you." Men always inquired of the prophets to find out the will of God; to rebuke kings, warn of judgment, admonish, teach, or foretell, He used the prophets, Christ is the prophet that should come, He appoints His apostles in their prophetic office, but the order of the prophets as seen in the Old Testament culminates and reaches perfection in Christ--God's perfect revelation of Himself to man,
SOTER IOLOGY Page 33
2. Christ as ”Priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
The prophetic announcement that Christ should be a Priest is found in Psa, l10:4.--verse 1, quoted in Heb.1, tells us of whom the prophet is speaking. “The Lord said unto my Lord, ‘Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This was quoted by Jesus and a number of the apostles. Now verse 4 ”Tho Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, ‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,”
Paul in Hebrews explains the difference between the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedek, The order of Aaron was a changing priesthood, cut short by death, and passed on to the children, But Melchizedek was a never-ending priesthood, not passed on, received by direct gift from God, and typified by the fact that Melchizedek’s genealogy was not recorded among men. See Heb. 7, 8, for an explanation by Paul, Christ’s priesthood is in the Heavenly Tabernacle, Aaron’s in the earthly, Christ is called our “high priest” in the only sense in which the name can mean anything; that is, the way the Jews knew, after the manner of the earthly ordained high priest of the 0.T. His was a two-fold work: (1) To make an atonement for the people; and (2) to make intercession for the people to God, The work of making an atonement is given in Lev, 16 and finds its perfect commentary in Heb,, especially 8-10, and finds its fullest expression in the 10th of Hebrews. Christ is both the “Lamb of God without spot or blemish who gives His life, that His blood may save men,” and the “High Priest who offers His own blood upon the true mercy seat in the Heavenly Tabernacle pitched in Heaven,” --the final perfect sacrifice which could take away sin, the one perfect sacrifice which is adequate to the need and satisfactory to God,
And He intercedes for us now in His living capacity, a faithful high priest, Heb. 7:25 “He ever liveth to make intercession for us," Rom, 8:34. also. In John 17 we have one of His earthly intercessory prayers, which Is still in effect today. Ho tells Peter, “Satin hath desired thee .. but I have prayed for thee.” Such is the teaching throughout Hebrews. The need of an ever living high priest to intercede now is seen from a two-fold standpoint, In His expiation, He could say
SOTER IOLOGY Page 34
on the cross, “It is finished”; and in Hebrews “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” And 1O:l0--.”By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ once for all," And "this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever,
sat down (signifying a finished work) at the right hand of God,” The work of offering the sacrifice and sprinkling the mercy seat and expiating the sins of men Is finished, But the daily sprinkling of God’s people from their sins, and bringing sinners to God, will not be finished until the plan of redemption reaches its culmination.3. Christ as the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords,”
That Christ is a King, the greater son of David who should rule over a literal kingdom, Is the real literal interpretation of many Messianic prophecies. The promise to David that he should
never fail to have a son to sit on his throne (I Chron, l7:1-14.; Psa, 89:35-38)--Christ Himself applies these Messianic prophecies to Himself as David’s son, In Matt, 22:41 He quoted David from Psa, 110:1, where David calls his son Lord. The renewal of this promise was made to Mary by Gabriel before Jesus’ birth, Luke 1:32,33. The book of Matt, opens with the question, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” and ends with the question of Pilate, answered in the affirmative by Jesus, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” and with the superscription written over His head on the cross--”This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Jews.” Paul says, I Tim. 6:l~--”Our Lord Jesus Christ; which In His time He shall she:; who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,” In His final great appearing in Rev.19 we read, “on His head were many crowns ... On His thigh a name was written, KING OF KINGS AND OF LORDS.” You may trace His lordship and Kingship throughout the Scriptures.
His kingship involves (1) a literal earthly kingship over a literal earthly kingdom with Israel
as the head nation and Jerusalem as the capitol; (2) a spiritual kingship over the redeemed) called “the kingdom of God’s dear Son." He is our King in this sense; (3) a universal kingship over all things both spiritual and material, I Cor, 15:24,25. This kingship signifies His absolute authority
SOTER IOLOGY Page 35
delegated to Him of the Father over all things Thus He commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him, and “All power Is given unto me both in heaven and in earth.”
This kingship is in His mediatorial capacity apart from His lordship as creator and sustainer of the universe, Thus it is spoken of as being derived, given to Him of the Father, In His creatorship and position as Second Person of the Trinity, He has the same authority and lordship as the other members of the Trinity. Hence, I Cor, l5:24-25 speaks of this kingship as being delivered over to the Father sometime when this mediatorial office is no more needed, and God's great plan of redemption is completed.
III. THE ATONEMENT
There have been many objections of the using of the word ‘atonement’ to designate the work accomplished by Christ in redeeming man from his sins. Part of that objection arises from the fact that the word occurs only once in the English New Testament, in Rom. 5:11, where the Greek word means “reconciliation" But It is an Old Testament word used very often of the sacrifices on the day of atonement, which Paul interprets as refer ring to the perfect Sacrifice our High Priest has offered for us.
Thus men have brought the great word down to the level of the purely human usage of it: atonement, "at-one ment" -- merely the effect of reconciliation, without including in it the cause of that reconciliation. They have stressed the bringing back into harmony with God, while ignoring the grounds of that harmony as founded in a finished basis of atonement in the death of Christ. The word has a broader moaning in its usage in the Old Testament than the mere bringing together of two estranged parties into harmony, or reconciliation. It has the
meaning of the giving of satisfaction or compensation a s a grounds for that reconciliation; that is, to expiate. So in Lev 5:16 the priest shall make an atonement for him and expiation, or satisfaction for his guilt. Thus the word ‘propitiation’, is used in the New Testament, means satisfaction, Justice does not merely wink at sin and smilingly look the other way and forgive it as nonconsequencial, but the claims of
SOTERIOLOGY Page 36justice must be met by payment in kind. Its just claims must have the penalty paid; it must be satisfied before reconciliation can be made. Hence “Christ is the propitiation for our sins and
not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world,” His atoning death upon Calvary was the satisfaction, enough payment in kind acceptable to the justice of God for the sins of all men.
The word to atone, even In its human usage, carried the meaning, “to make up” for a sin, whether of commission or omission, that the parties might be rough together again on mutual
harmonious footing. We should not be willing to throw out the word merely because It does not occur in that form in. the New Testament in the English translation. It occurs every time the word “reconcile” occurs, For the same Greek word is used to translate the Hebrew word in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, It does not carry all the moaning to our minds, but taken with the other New Testament words speaking of Christ’s work on the cross we can arrive at more comprehensive understanding of His redeeming work
The Hebrew word for "atonement" was "Kaphar," literally 'to cover," to reconcile the sinner to God by covering his sins from the holy eyes of God, The method of that covering was by blood, typifying the perfect blood sacrifice of Christ, which would blot out instead of covering. Thus the atonement of Christ as reconciling the whole world unto God puts the sinner in the place before God whereby God is freed from the necessity of punishing his sins. God, in His holiness and justice, could see the sinner through the covering blood as one upon whom the penalty for sin need not be inflicted, Thus it covers, or Is a propitiation for the whole world, But since it is done for the sinner without his cooperation or consent, it merely delays the execution of the sentence and gives grace to repent; but the sinner must personally
appropriate the Substitution for his own, in order for that atonement to be efficacious for him,
Thus the Atonement is the basis for all salvation. The New Testament never falls to base all
God’s dealings with us on the blood of Christ, Through that perfect satisfaction God Is rendered propitious, that is, now it is consistent with His very nature to forgive sins, Without that vicarious
SOTER IOLOGY Page 37
satisfaction, God could not have been just while justifying the ungodly. The word “propitiate”
means appeased, placated. The name “Mercy seat” literally is “propitiated seat,” a place where the holy God looking through the blood, could meet with a sinful people and be kindly disposed toward them In spite of their sins.
Thus we arrive at a large meaning of the atoning work of Christ on Calvary, God need no sacrifice to make Him love the world. But His love is restricted by His holiness. And sin
intervenes. He cannot express His love and redeem man because of the separating sin. But the work of Christ in His death removes the demands of God’s justice for full payment, making complete satisfaction or payment; so God is consistent with His own holiness when He forgets penitent sinners, “just while justifying the ungodly.” The heavenly mercy seat is sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and those coming through Him can meet God there.1, The Reality of the ATONEMENT
The early church formulated no doctrine of the Atonement or saving work of Christ on the cross, but accepted it as an accomplished fact, a gospel of good news which was for them and liberated them from all fear of Divine punishment for sin and reinstated them in a holy place with God. It was only after so many false theories of the atonement crept into the church that in defense the holders of the truth must formulate some concrete interpretations of the work Christ accomplished for thorn. So in our preaching, the great facts of Christ’s saving power through His vicarious sufferings are to be proclaimed in the terms of Scripture, not doctrine, When trying to get men to accept Christ’s work for them do not forsake the language of Scripture, for the wordage of men or the language of theology. And so we wish to state the doctrinal lines later.
a. The gospel is a message of salvation,
The word “gospel” means "good news”. It Is called "the gospel of the grace of God," "The
glorious gospel of the blessed God,” Acts 20:24; "the gospel of salvation," Eph. 1:13. The good
SOTER IOLOGY Page 38
news message is an overture of grace and forgiveness on the part of God to sinful men.
b, This salvation is in Christ.
Christ Is the Saviour. The angel said concerning Jesus, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins,” Matt, 1:21. "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved,” John 3:17; and many more.
c. This salvation should be through His suffering and death.
Redemption from sin arid God’s forgiveness of sin and adoption was to be purchased on the basis of salvation. “Much more, than, being justified by His blood, we sha11 be saved from wrath, through Him,” Rom, 5:9. “For Christ hath also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,” I Pet. 3:18---and the hundreds of portions which base our every blessing and acceptance with God upon “the blood of Christ.”
d. The Scripture affirms the necessity of His redeeming death,
“Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all
nations,” Luke 24:46,47. There was no other means of salvation, For in Gal. 2:21 Paul states
the truth, “For if righteousness come be the law, then Is Christ dead in vain,” Or in 3:21, “For
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”
e. It is the only explanation of Christ’s sufferings.
He had no sin of His own, and He declared His ability and power to avert death, This alone’ explains the words, “Father, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will but thine be done,” He. must drink of the cup of His sufferings, for “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin,” For God had declared 1500 years
SOTER IOLOGY Page 39
before the pathway back to Himself for man and forgiveness of sin; Lev, 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls; f or it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” His death is mentioned over 175 times directly In the New Testament.
f. Some Scriptural statements of why Christ died.
(1) For our sins, Isa, 53:5; Rom. 4:25; I Cor. 15:3; I Pet. 2:24.
(2) He died as a ransome, Matt. 20:28.
(3) His soul was made an offering for sin, Isa, 53:10.
(4) He is the propitiation for our sins, I John 4: 10; Rom. 3:25,
The Holy God must pour out just wrath against sin, either upon the guilty or a substitute, The
A.S.T. Version of Isa. 53:6,8---”All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath made to strike upon Him the iniquity of us all,” “By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as f or His generation, who from among them considered that Ho was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due, satisfied the demands of God’s holiness,”
In Gen. 32:20, Jacob said (speaking of Esau). “I will send my present before his face; peradventure he will accept it of me. So went the present before him,” Dean Payne Smith
renders it, “I will cover his face with the offering which goeth before me,” Rotherham renders it, “I must pacify him with the present which goeth before my face,” and then he footnotes it with the literal, “I will cover his face with my present.,” He shall so my present before men and instead of me, and not my guilt, but my present, thus pacifying his anger,--thus the reason for God’s using the word for atonement, So. it is as applied to Christ’s perfect work for substitution. The Sacrifice comes before His face, to see it instead of me. Thus are hidden away In Christ; His wrath falls upon the substitute, Many object to the thought of pacifying “God’s wrath against sin.” They forget
SOTER IOLOGY Page 40
that God is “angry with the wicked all day long.” His holiness must abhur sin, When we think of this, It is a great joy to know our present lives are seen though Christ, God is not only the one pacified, but the One who pacified with His own sacrifice and self.
But the same word is rendered “purged” in Isa.6:7--”This hath touched thy lips; thus shall be
taken away thine iniquity and thy sin by propitiation covered,” Rotherham. Even in the Old Testament God had a cleansing.
In Lev. 17:11, God reveals the only basis for covering of sin, to be by blood or death, “The
wages of sin is death”; therefore the covering must be by death. It was the blood of the God-.
chosen substitute which covered until God’s perfect Substitute, Christ, could come.
(5) He became a curse to redeem us from the curse, Gal. 3:10,13. The law had said,
“Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the law to do them.
(6) Christ died as our Passover Lamb, so that a holy God could pass over us when dealing
out just judgment for sin, I Cor, 5:7, compared with Ex, 12:13,23.
(7) He died that we might be adopted into God’s family, Gal. 4.:4,5.
(8) He died to redeem us from the bondage of sin and the present evil world, Gal. 1:14.; Col, 1:13-114.,
(9) Christ died for all, Rom. 8:32; John. 1:29; I Tim, 2:6; Hob, 2:9. We shall deal with this more thoroughly under our subject, “Limited Atonement.”
Many other results of His death could be tabulated, such as our access to God by His blood,
our sanctification, justification, glorification, resurrection, gift of the Holy Spirit, our identification with Him, blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances which were against us, purchased the church unto Himself, daily cleansing and sprinkling.SOTER IOLOGY Page 41
with the blood for the child of God, no charge can be laid to the child of God, no condemnation, cleansing of our consciences from dead works, freedom from self-condemnation, boldness to enter the heavenly Holy of Holies, right to the tree of life,
and admission to the eternal city, the abolition of death, and destruction of him who has the power of death--the devil, the redemption of all creation from under the curse, and summed up-- “He that spared not His own Son, but offered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”
g, The importance of Christ’s death might be ascertained by noting the conversation between Christ and Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration.
They talked “of His decease which He should accompush at Jerusalem.” This Illustrates the fact that His passion was the subject of heavenly interest, or we might say great concern, Peter states that it was the subject of concern with the prophets and angels, I Pet. 1:9-12. Paul in I Cor, 15:1-14. links it with the resurrection as the two important contents of the Gospel, which he delivered, which saved men,
2. THE TERM used in the SCRIPTURES to describe CHRIST’S SAVING WORK
There are five of the, each adding something more to our understanding of what Christ accomplished on Calvary f or us, Each in itself is not sufficient to tell us all He did, but taken together they outline His work: the Father’s interest, the Son’s work, and Man’s part. Atonement, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Redemption, Substitution.
a, ATONEMENT
We have in our introduction considered somewhat the term ‘atonementt, with the objections many use to its being used to cover the whole subject. They are well founded, as it is not a New Testament term; yet It does convey the Old Testament meaning -- to cover, blot out, discharge from punishment; in the noun form, it means an expiation, sacrifice for sin, To get a n accurate meaning of the word atonement we must go back to the Old Testament where the
word is used, Men have tried to give it the meaning of at-one-ment, which is the result of the
SOTER IOLOGY Page 42
Atonement rather than the atonement. The law of first reference works here again--find out where the word first occurs and the context invariably explains its meaning, The Hebrew word ‘caphar’ or kaphar,’ the primary root, first occurs in Gen, 6:14.--literally, atone the ark within and without with atonement~ Here the meaning is simple--”cover with a covering,” When used of an offering the meaning would be “to cover the guilty soul with an expiatory offering or Dr. Hodge says “to make moral and legal reparation for a fault or Injury,” Atonement therefore expresses what CHRIST GAVE TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF.
Good looks at us through Christ’s blood. Hence "Our lives are hid with Christ in God,” Psa. 32:1 - atoned for, covered by an appeasing sacrifice.
b, RECONCILIATION
There are three Greek words, very much alike in meaning: two of them are taken from the changing or exchanging of money; hence, mutual exchange of differences, a de justment of a difference,--a restoration to favor (katallassee and katallage-katalagay). The meaning may be determined where it is used of a woman being reconciled to her husband, I Cor, 7:11, Scofield well notes on his note to Col. 1:20-21; this word is never used of God for there could be no change in Him, but is used of man; Propitiation is used of God--in Rom.5:10. “For if, when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, not
merely being reconciled by His death, we shall be saved by His life.” This is the reconciliation of enemies, upon the basis of Christ’s death - the changing of our enmity to love and trust, His
death brings the basis, which is the payment of our debt; so our trespasses can be cancelled, Christ being the propitiation f or our sins, and God being satisfied, with His Son’s sacrifice, all that remains is for the sinner to be completely reconciled or satisfied with God’s adjustments of the difference and changes. Hence, “the ministry of reconciliation” is given to us, to preach to sinners, “Be ye reconciled to God.” “God as In Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." Here is the universal ness of the reconciliation, On God’s side nothing remains in the way, His side is stated in a two-fold way: (1) not imputing their sins unto them; (2) II Cor, 5:18.-2l, “giving the ministry of reconciliation,”
SOTER IOLOGY Page 43
God’s enmity against sin is not upon Christ at Calvary, The necessity to execute sentence is
stayed, and now He may freely forgive sin for the sinner who accepts the message of reconciliation. Hence we have a gospel to preach to a 11 men. This does not mean that God complacently looks upon sin and is willing for it to continue, but only that the Godward side of the enmity is propitiated; and on the basis of Christ’s atoning work God can for give sin and restore the estranged sinner, if he will accept Christ (even as God has accepted His
mediatorial work).
Paul even takes the Greek word a step further and adds a prefix--completely; apekatallasse
(apeka tal lasse), “To change thoroughly or completely from.” He uses it in Col. l:20.~21 and in Eph. 2:l6--”peace through the blood of the cross, to reconcile all things unto Himself,”
c, PROPITIATION.
From the Greek nouns ‘hilasmos’ and ‘hilasterien’, Theyer gives the meaning thus: “relating
to appeasing or expiating (making reparation), placating--removing enmity, by the appeasing or making of reparations, It does not necessarily carry the meaning of having to pla cate a vengeful God or to make Him of a mind to love us. This He already did: mercy He already had; but justice and holiness demanded reparations. Sin must be punished; enemies by dead works could not be reinstated regardless of offences, (Illustrate by murderer.)
Christ’s death, as called “a propitiation,” removed all moral hindrances in the mind and nature
of God to show elegancy or mercy in forgiving sinners. A propitiation is anything which would render an offended party of a mind to show mercy, clemency, and to forgive. The word "propitiate" occurs eight times in the original--four times ‘propitiation’ (Rom. 3:25; I Jn. 2:2; 4:10); rendered ‘mercy seat’ in Heb, 9:5; in Luke 18:18 ‘merciful’; in Heb, 2:17 ‘reconciliating.
This portion has been called “the morrow of theology,” and Calvin declared, “There is not
probably in the whole Bible a passage which sets forth more profoundly the righteousness of God in Christ.” Cowper, the song writer--near to despair. contemplating suicide, agitated--pacing his room, at last seated himself near a windwo and took up
SOTERIOLOGY Page 44
the Bible, He says, “The passage which met my eyes was the 25th verse of the 3rd chapter of Romans, On reading it I immediately received power to believe. The rays of the Sun of Righteousness fell on me in all their fullness; I saw the complete sufficiency of the expiation which Christ had wrought for my pardon and entire justification. In an instant I believed and received the peace of the gospel.” He added, “If the arm of the Almighty had not supported me, I believe I should have been overwhelmed with gratitude and joy; my eyes filled with tears; transports choked my utterance, I could only look to heaven in silent fear, overflowing with love and wonder,”
To get a closer meaning of the original and the full beauty of Paul’s masterful wording, let us see Godet’s reading: ~ He hath established beforehand as the means of propitiation through
faith in His blood, for the demonstration of His righteousness on account of the tolerance shown toward sins that wore past, during the forebearance of God, for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just, and the justifier of him who is bf the faith of Jesus,”
Note the Scriptural interpretation of propitiation: that God might be righteousness, and yet tolerant toward sin, both past and present,-- not at the expense of His holiness or righteous-.
ness, but so that He could at the same time be just, yet justify the ungodly.
d, REDEMPTION, or HANSOM
The term means the releasing from captivity, slavery, or death, by the payment of a ransom price--literally, buying back. The number of Scriptures referring to Christ’s death as a ransom or our redemption through Christ are very numerous -- Matt. 20:28; I Tim, 2:6. In every passage the word for ransom or redemption has the preposition before it, meaning in the stead or "in the place of. " The same preposition occurs in Matt, 2:22--Archelaus was reigning "in the room,” or in the stead, of his father. So Matt, 16:26 -- “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” It always means ‘the price in exchange for when dealing with Christ’s atonement as a redemption.
SOTER IOLOGY Page 45
I Cor. 6:2O--”Ye are bought with a price.” Rev, 5:9--”Thou wast slain, a