No My Arminian Brethren The Real Monstrosity Is...

Obviously I'm really pushing this book. Here's why:

Let’s begin by considering the logic of the doctrine. Some claim that definite atonement is a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic. In reality, both Arminianism and Calvinism are self-consistent logical systems.

 If human beings are capable of responding to God’s grace on their own, and if election means only God’s acceptance of those He foresees will turn to Him, then the only atonement that is necessary is one that permits God to forgive those who so respond (Arminianism). But if, on the other hand, fallen human beings are in bondage to their sinful nature, incapable of understanding spiritual things, submitting to God’s Law, or doing anything pleasing to Him; and if election is truly a matter of God’s unconditional choice—if, in short, God has given a people to His Son—then we would expect an atonement that actually saves the lost (Calvinism). From the point of view of a Calvinistic understanding of the Scriptures, it is the Arminian atonement that seems a monstrosity, because it promises fallen men and women no power to raise them from their spiritual death. If a woman were lying at the bottom of a deep well, with no strength to climb out, it would not comfort her much to hear somebody at the top shouting, “Good news! There is nothing to prevent me giving you a hand once you get to the top!” From the Calvinist perspective, the help offered by an Arminian atonement is worthless.

 The Calvinist atonement, in contrast, is one that actually saves the lost. Jesus’ death satisfied the claims of divine justice against the sins of the elect and purchased for them all that is required for their salvation: effectual calling, faith, justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification with Christ in heaven. All these blessings of salvation flow to them from the Cross. Christ has paid for their sins. He has descended to the very bottom of the well on their behalf, and He will by no means fail to rescue them. “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39).

 From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.*

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them (Jn 17:6–10 emphasis mine).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 164-165). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Every pastor, if he is faithful to Christ, must deal with false teaching and false teachers. Not only is it a biblical mandate (Ti. 1:10-11), it is a historical fact. Great men of God have always stood against those that oppose Christ with their "different gospels."

Martyn Lloyd-Jones is an example and here he deals with false theories of the atonement:

Another theory is commonly called the moral influence theory. Now this is the most popular of the theories; let me summarise it in this way. It says that God had no difficulty in forgiving us; as far as God was concerned there was no need to do anything. His love is so great that He always, at every point, is full of forgiveness; but the difficulty was to get mankind to believe that. So, they say, what really happened on the cross was a marvellous display of the love of God. I remember once listening to the sermon of a man who ridiculed the substitutionary atonement. ‘You must not say,’ he said, ‘that God was offering forgiveness because of the cross. God forgives even without the cross, but the cross was the proof of God’s love. God is telling us on the cross: “Though you have killed my only begotten Son, I will still forgive you.” ’ Christ’s death was a manifestation of the love of God. In the cross we see Him suffering in and with His sinful creatures and taking upon Himself the woes and griefs of human life. So the cross is meant to break us down; as we look at it our hard hearts are to be softened. The death of Christ is to do something to us alone.

Now that theory, again, as I think we shall see when we come to the positive theory, is entirely wrong, because it does not mention the justice of God at all. It says that nothing was necessary on God’s side—there was no obstacle there—but the trouble was only with man. So Christ is not a mediator, because He was dealing with man and not at all with God. The theory takes no notice whatsoever of some of the most glorious scriptural statements which we shall be considering together.

Another idea is that the death of Christ is just an example. He came into the world to live a perfect life. He kept the law, yes, and He wanted to leave a good example of obedience to God and His will, so He went as far as death. He was ready to do even that in order to do God’s will and thereby He provided us with an example. The answer to that is that we still have to save ourselves and we save ourselves by imitating His example. We are not saved by Him, it is not His blood that redeems us. Furthermore, what about those who lived before Christ?*

And here he states the biblical view:

Having considered some of the false theories with respect to the doctrine of what exactly happened when the Son of God died on the cross, we come now to a positive exposition of what I claim to be the biblical teaching. It is certainly the view of the atonement that was taught by all the Protestant Fathers. It was taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin and by the Reformers in Britain.

So what is it? The biblical teaching emphasises the supremacy of the substitutionary element in the atonement. It asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ suffered the penalty of the broken law vicariously, as the substitute for His people. That is, in a brief compass, a statement of what has been known as the reformed view of the biblical doctrine of the atonement. Now you will notice at once that there is a difference between this and those false theories which we have considered. This view has two main characteristics. The first is the emphasis upon the fact that Jesus Christ has done something as our substitute, and the second is the penal aspect—it states that the law pronounced a penalty which He, as our substitute, has borne in our stead.*

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


* Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (314). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (317). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

But I suppose if you were to be asked to say where the Bible teaches the holiness of God most powerfully of all you have to go to Calvary. God is so holy, so utterly holy, that nothing but that awful death could make it possible for Him to forgive us. The cross is the supreme and the sublimest declaration and revelation of the holiness of God.

 I should like to tarry with this great theme, but I cannot; we must move on. Let us just remind ourselves that surely the purpose of the biblical revelation of God’s holiness is to teach us how to approach Him. It is not mere theoretical knowledge that we are asked to try to grasp with our understandings. Its purpose is very practical. In the words of the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, we are to approach God ‘with reverence and godly fear’ (Heb. 12:28). He is always to be approached in that way, wherever you are; when you are alone in a room, or when you are meeting as a family to pray, or when you are in a public service, God is always God and He is always to be approached ‘with reverence and godly fear’. No such expression as ‘Dear God’, for example, is to be found in the Scriptures.

 There are many illustrations of this. Think again of Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3); then there is the terrible case of that man Uzzah who put out his hand to steady the Ark as it was being carried on a cart (2 Sam. 6). That is a terrible declaration about how we are to approach God and worship Him. Read the account of how the law was given; how the mount was burning with fire, and nothing was allowed to approach it (Exod. 19:16–25): the holiness of God.

 This doctrine also teaches us, of course, the terrible nature of sin. You will never have a knowledge of sin unless you have a true conception of the holiness of God. And that is perhaps why the modern conception of sin is so inadequate. We do not spend sufficient time with the doctrine of God, and with the holiness of God. That is the way to see sin—not primarily by self-examination but by going into the presence of God. People sometimes say, ‘But you don’t expect all of us to feel that we are miserable sinners, do you? You don’t want all of us to say with Charles Wesley, “Vile and full of sin I am”? That may be all right for drunkards and people like that, but it’s not true of us!’

Some people are troubled by this. They say, ‘I have never really felt I am a sinner. How can I, when I have been brought up in a Christian home, and have always gone to a place of worship? Surely I’m not expected to have that awful sense of sin?’ But the answer to all that is this: If you really came into the presence of God and had some conception of His holiness, you would soon know yourself as a vile, terrible sinner. You would say with Paul that there is no good thing in you (Rom. 7:18). The way to appreciate your own sinfulness is not to look at your actions, nor your life, but to come into the presence of God.

And finally, of course, God’s holiness shows us the absolute necessity of the atonement. That is the reverse of what I was saying just now about the cross as the manifestation of the holiness of God. Yes, but as it manifests that, it also shows us that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, that God’s holiness insists upon it, demands an atonement for sin.*

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,  whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Ro 3:21–26).

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1996). God the Father, God the Son (71–72). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.