Tag: atonement

Reformation Gems 2: Johannes Brenz on Noah’s Sacrifice

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.

Today’s selection comes from volume 1 (Genesis 1-11). I appreciated the Christ-centered comments on Noah’s sacrifice in Genesis 8, from Johannes Brenz, originally pulbished in 1553.

Noah’s Sacrifice Had the Fragrance of Christ
Johannes Brenz: What is fragrant in the combustion of a calf, or an ox, or a goat? Especially if, along with the flesh, the bones are also burned up, which certainly produce a displeasing odor when burned! Yet it’s not what we think, that God is taken with the sweetness of an external smell. Rather, there are other things in Noah’s sacrifice that move God with pleasure. First, he is pleased with Noah’s gratitude, even as he is pleased with his care for spreading the teachings of true religion to his offspring. Finally–and this is best of all–he is pleased with Noah’s faith in the seed of the woman, in Jesus Christ, who is foreshadowed by the burnt offering. In Noah’s offering, God actually sees the sacrifice of his only-begotten Son, which would one day take place for the sins of the whole world. By this sacrifice he is so delighted that he rejoices not only to favor Noah but also to promise to preserve the earth. And by that promise, the Holy Spirit shows that the sacrifice of God’s only-begotten Son would have so much efficacy that on its account the earth would be preserved and all who believe in it would be freed from death and given eternal life–which Paul also shows in Ephesians 5[:2]: “Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (pg. 285)

About the Reformation-era author: Johannes Brenz (1499-1570). German Lutheran reformer and pastor. Brenz was converted to the reformation cause after hearing Martin Luther speak; later, Brenz became a student of Johannes Oecolampadius. His central achievement lay in his talent for organization. As city preacher in Schwäbisch-Hall and afterward in Württemberg and Tübingen, he oversaw the introduction of reform measures and doctrines and new governing structures for ecclesial and educational communities. Brenz also helped establish Lutheran orthodoxy through treatises, commentaries and catechisms. He defended Luther’s position on eucharistic presence against Huldrych Zwingli and opposed the death penalty for religious dissenters. (pg. 356-357)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of this latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Why "Limited Atonement" (part 2)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I apologize for not picking up my limited atonement series sooner. The holidays plus a couple bouts of illness intervened.

I’m not optimistic enough to think in the next few posts I’ll answer all of everyone’s questions on this topic. I’ll still have more research to do and questions of my own, I’m sure. What I hope to do, however, is to explain where Calvinists are coming from in this whole matter of “Limited Atonement”, and I hope to show that even if you disagree with our conclusions, there are strong Biblical arguments for our position.

Points of Agreement

In this debate, its important to remember where we are on the same page. Most non-Calvinists agree with the 5 point Calvinists in many respects regarding the atonement.

1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.

2) We agree that not all people will believe in Jesus; therefore, many will sadly perish ultimately in Hell.

3) We agree that Christ’s death provides the basis for the global mission of preaching the gospel to all. Everyone has a bonafide offer of salvation in the gospel, because of Christ’s death.

4) We also agree that because of Christ’s death, mercy (common grace) is given to all men such that God does not consume those who sin instantly. Rather, he gives them innumerable good things to enjoy in this life. God is freed up to do this because Jesus’ death proves that God is just.

Here we see a great degree of agreement. Without actually saying Christ died for all, Calvinists nevertheless believe all benefit from His death. Setting aside that semantic quibble, Calvinists basically affirm all the main things non-Calvinists affirm about the atonement. (We’ll deal with the non-Calvnist reasons for insisting on death for all, and their logical objections to the Calvinist view in future posts.)

Calvinist’s add one additional point

Calvinists go further, however, and affirm the following.

5) Christ’s death not only makes salvation possible for all who would believe, it actually purchases the very faith by which the elect believe. It does so because by his death, Jesus actually propititated God’s wrath for the elect and suffered in their place.

In short, we believe that the elect were in God’s mind all along with his designs for the atonement. He had called them from the beginning of the world, and it is consistent with Scripture and reason that he would see his death as effecting their salvation particularly. We all believe in a substitutionary atonement, in this view, however, Christ actually substituted for specific people, the elect.

In the next post I hope to provide the Biblical support that Calvinists have for this claim. Then I’ll try to interact with objections to that view and the support for the typical non-Calvinist evangelical position.

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources

Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth calls himself a 6 Point Calvinist, and dubs his view the “Unlimited/Limited Atonement” position. Yet Bruce Ware also calls that same view “4 Point Calvinism”, and I read an article which claims Benjamin Warfield interacted with what we would call “4 Point Calvinism” today, when he took on “Post-Redemptionism”. To confuse matters even more, Eric Svendsen posits a similar view which he calls “4.5 Point Calvinism”. Then there is the historical variety of this position called Amyraldianism, which seems to be specifically what Warfield was opposing.

In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16”). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

6) I also found the following summary by Bruce Ware to be helpful in explaining and distinguishing the three main positions.

7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles. Personally, I want to review my blogging pal Bnonn’s articles on the issue as well [here, here & here]. And I think it would also be worthwhile to explore Eric Svendsen’s posts on his “4.5 Point Calvinism”.

Now if there were just more time for all this reasearch!……

6 Point Calvinism & The Atonement Question

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

Lately, I’ve been struggling to get back to blogging. With the birth of our fourth daughter, 24 days of having company at our house in October, & with pressing issues at work, coupled with studying Biblical Theology at my church Bible institute, & gearing up for teaching through 1 Peter in our new Church small group, I’ve been a little busy! We also just got back from a trip to WI for another cousin’s wedding.

Amidst all of that, the comments around here have been quite busy lately, too! And most of the action has centered on the Calvinism issue, in one respect or another. See this post for an explanation. Part of blogging involves following other blogs, and so I have recently been distracted by a debate on the atonement question at Contend Earnestly (which now has a permanent spot on my blogroll, by the way) and Theology Online.

The question intrigues me as it asks whether Christ’s death on the cross atoned for the sins of all the world, or just the elect. I have had debates on my blog concerning Calvinism’s infamous “limited atonement” point (see this post). And while I do defend Calvinism’s understanding that Christ gave his life for his sheep in a special sense that he did not do for all people equally, yet I have also come to understand that on this particular question there is room for disagreement (see this post & this post).

So as I find myself looking into the question more closely, I don’t know which side to take. The “6 Point Calvinists” (Seth McBee and others) hold to an unlimited expiation, but a limited application of Christ’s atonement. All the sins of all are paid for, but only those who will believe (the elect) will be forgiven. So on the one hand, John 3:16 is taken to refer to Christ dieing for all people, with the goal of saving the world, yet on the other hand John 10:15ff. is understood to refer to Christ’s singular aim to actually save the elect alone. Their view is called the “unlimited/limited” view of the atonement.

If you are a little confused, or if that seems a little odd, join the club. But we should know that there have been various church leaders throughout history who have affirmed this view in one form or another, notably John Calvin, John Davenant, J.C. Ryle, R.L. Dabney, and W.G.T. Shedd.

I want to encourage anyone with time, to follow the debate over at Contend Earnestly. There are some helpful comments over there, and they are posting both views in an honest attempt at a fair and even-handed debate. Here are links to the posts so far: introduction, John 3:16–limited view, John 3:16–unlimited/limited view.

Finally, I’m open to input from the peanut gallery. Please if you know of some good articles on this issue, or if you have a couple of cents worth of input on the topic, feel free to give it here in the comments of this post. Of course, I’d encourage you to join the fray over at Contend Earnestly.

May God help us to learn and appreciate one another more through this, not just to waste time bickering over obscure points of doctrine. May we not lose sight of the glorious truth that Christ died in our place, and may we not forget to worship, even as we study!