Bishop's Father, we say amen to these prayers, we thank you for the grace you're giving us and your Son. Thank you for working in our lives and encouraging us in many ways. Lord, we commit our class time to you tonight. Build us up in our faith as we think about the way you have applied salvation to our lives. Make us grateful. Give us a greater desire to pursue holiness, Father. Work in us. We ask through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, amen. We have a number of tasks and we're slightly behind. We need to finish up the matter of the extent of the atonement. I'm on page 123. I need to not drag this out too long, but we ran out of time last time. I presented Millard Ericsson's very fair presentation of the different viewpoints and noted weaknesses on both sides. Presented Ericsson's own case, admitted it had some strengths, but also so weaknesses. And I don't presume to settle this matter for everyone, but here is my best shot, page 123. I agree with Ericsson. Sometimes the Calvinist case has been much more theological than biblical. And frankly, I think more work needs to be done. Here's an attempt. I have three arguments for particular atonement that is the view that Jesus did not merely make possible salvation for everyone. I think that would have helped no one, but that he actually secured the salvation of the people the Father had given to him. That is that he actually made atonement for the elect, the position of so-called limited atonement. I prefer the terminology definite or particular or even efficacious atonement. Three reasons. Ephesians 1 is a good place to go for the first one. I like the argument from Trinitarian Harmony. Particular atonement best fits the biblical picture of the persons of the Godhead working together in the area of salvation. The particularist position is in keeping with the Trinitarian Harmony expressed in passages such as Ephesians 1, 3 through 14. In the interest of time, I'm going to assume you've read the passage recently. Let me show you Paul's own structuring device. This passage is divided into three sections, I'm reading from the notes, each ending with the refrain to the praise of his glory or the like. Actually, I think the long hand is given the first time in verse 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, and then I consider it shorthand in 12 and 14, the praise of his glory. In each section furthermore, so if you use those indicators, you have verses 3 through 6, 6 to 12 and 13 and 14, three divisions that you can see by picking up on that refrain that Paul puts at 6, 12 and 14 in the passage. Furthermore, in each section, God is praised for salvation and there's a main actor, each person of the Trinity is the main actor in one of these sections. In verses 3 through 6, the Father is praised for electing the people of God before creation. In verses 6 through 12, especially the Son is singled out for praise. If the only place it mentions his own work, verse 6, God has freely given us his grace in the one he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood. Christ is praised for redeeming the same people of God, the first person plural pronouns continue. We have redemption through his blood and so forth. In verses 13 and 14, the Holy Spirit is praised for sealing the people of God, technically the Father seals the people of God in Christ with the Holy Spirit, but this last I'll call it paragraph is the only place the Spirit is mentioned in the passage. This sealing is until the day of their future redemption in glory. There's a change in pronouns from we to you. It's a shift from speaking of Jewish believers to Gentile believers as is indicated by the expression in 12. We who were the first to hope in Christ contrasted with 13 and you also were included. Most of these things I have said are not my own interpretation but common agreement among expositors. I'm just using this information in the along theological purposes to ascertain the extent of the atonement. In this passage, if the saving work of the Father and of the Spirit is particular and I really see it that way, the Father didn't choose everybody in Christ before the creation of the world and surely not everybody is sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Furthermore, the Spirit seals those in the context who believe and those who believe or those who had been previously chosen by the Father. So if the saving work of the Father and the Spirit is particular, can we say that the saving work of the Son is not? Does the Father choose some, the Son, a temporary deem all and the Spirit, then seal some? Is the Son working out of harmony with the Father and the Holy Spirit? Is he attempting to save all, making salvation possible, some kind of a hypothetical notion of the atonement while they save only the elect? I know I have lots of questions there but what I'll say it without a question now. The notion of an effective and therefore particular redemption best fits with this idea of trinitarian harmony. The Father chooses his people before creation. The Son redeems those people and the Father seals those same people in Christ with the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. Thus a rising out of the text is a theological argument for particular atonement based upon trinitarian harmony. The members of the Godhead do not work against each other. They work for the same purposes and goals they work in harmony. Other passages hint at the same but this will be sufficient for our purposes tonight which have to unfortunately be kind of survey. Secondly, the doctrine of particular, the particular intent and then extent of the atonement best expresses the efficacy of the cross not in some theoretical notion of efficacy or in some notion of atonement apart from the Bible but rather as that which is taught in biblical passages themselves. Revelation 5 will be my passage here where we have an efficacious and effective atonement that is spoken of. The elders circling God's throne on whom is the Father and the Lamb and before whom are the seven spirits of God reference to the Holy Spirit. They sing a new song in verse 9. You are worthy speaking of the Lamb to take the scroll of God's judgment and to open its seals. And here's the reason for the worthiness because you were slain. It's a strong word. It means slaughtered. It means put to death with a violent death. You were slain and with your blood you purchased the word men is implied. You need to put something like that in there because what follows is a preposition from every tribe and language and people and nation. You purchased some people, many multitudes, all the translations insert a word because of what we call the partitive construction that follows. It indicates a whole out of which the proceeding is a part that is those purchased are a subset of the tribe, tribes, languages, peoples and nations.
Looking at the notes from page 123 in this latter passage we learn that Christ is the Lamb who was slain and with his blood purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. Does the idea of a potential or hypothetical as opposed to an actual atonement fit this passage? That is, Jesus died to make salvation possible. Again, I don't think so. Rather, he died to actually purchase people for God. His death was effective. With his blood he purchased people. John says furthermore within the passage there's a hint at how he might construe the world and all in those other passages. By the way, this passage answers to query as to how those holding to particular atonement can give a free offer of the gospel to everyone since the Christ died for everyone. That is for men from every tribe and people from every language group and every people and every national entity, every nation. They're not really for distinct ideas but pretty much for ways of saying a very similar thing anyway since Christ died for everyone all without distinction. That is people out of every people group language and locale then we can preach with confidence knowing that he has his people there already who will respond. This is not unique holding to the other of any other the other five points of Calvinism. It's the same thing. It's a matter of harmonizing in practice belief in God's sovereignty and salvation with human responsibility of the messenger to get the message out. So it's not unique to the doctrine of particular atonement. What I'm claiming is this the Bible itself presents the cross as effective and unless one then holds to a universalism the idea that everybody is saved in the end there must be a definite or particular and hence limited scope to the work of Christ. It is unlimited in effectiveness. It accomplishes exactly what God intended for it to accomplish. It is unlimited in perfection and efficacy and sufficiency because that is the case it is limited in its final application. Everybody has to hold that unless you are an absolute universalist but I'm suggesting it I'm urging it is also limited or definite in its intent by God and then in what it actually accomplishes. Try it on for size. Think about it in your own Bible study. The cross is presented as effective. Thirdly there are exclusion passages. Ericsson correctly said that proponents of limited atonement do not prove their case by merely pointing to passages that say Jesus died for his people or the church or his sheep.
He even indicated in passing and I don't have the book with me that the passages unless the passages said something like he didn't die for the goats and so forth. Well as a matter of fact certain passages imply that. I call these exclusion passages. Particular redemption best accords with those passages which exclude some from Christ's saving work and I have in mind passages especially in the fourth gospel. I didn't look for them. I kind of found them without looking for them if you know what I mean. In John 10 for example Jesus says a number of times that he will lay down his life for his sheep. Is this not exactly the argument Ericsson opposed? So far it is and is it therefore not convincing? So far it would be. In the same context he looks his enemies in the face and tells them first 26 Jesus answered. I did tell you who I was but you do not believe implication. It is not for lack of evidence that you don't believe. It is because of your culpable unbelief said in terms of human responsibility but he answers them in terms of divine sovereignty as well. I did tell you but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my father's name speak for me but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. In our minds we almost reverse the passage. We say you are not my sheep because you don't believe. There's even some truth to that but it's not what Jesus says. He is speaking of more ultimate matters. He says you don't believe because you are not my sheep. Jesus thus distinguishes the sheep from the non sheep. I'll call them goats. Can we say in John 10 that Jesus lays down his life to save the goats? I don't think so. That is John 10 it's self includes an exclusion. I lay down my life for my sheep. I lay down my life for my sheep. You are not my sheep. I'd be hard put to say. He lays down his life to save them. It's the same in John 17 and I won't take our time to turn there. 124 last paragraph. Thus Ericsson is wrong at least some of the time when he says that Calvinists merely imply exclusion of some from the statements that Christ died for his sheep the church and so etc. In some passages there are contextual exclusions. More work needs to be done in this area. This is my own proposal at this point. I would like to write an article sometime. Debating Millard Ericsson in print and then maybe even giving him a chance to respond. I think it would be fruitful. He certainly is an ideal partner in dialogue because he is such a fair and a godly man. Yes sir. What's the big deal is the question. First of all it's a historical question debated in Holland in the early 17th century with the five points of Arminianism that came first. Of course there was a Dutch theology that prompted Arminius' response and then the five points of Calvinism that followed. So the issues were on the table historically. Ericsson addresses them as he studies the doctrine of salvation and as he positions himself in light of the five points of Calvinism as a four point Calvinist. He takes issue at that central point. I treat it here because it is an important part historically of the reformed faith. It's not the only aspect of the doctrine of salvation and I presented much broader concerns. The biblical themes of Christ's saving work, victory, sacrifice legal theme and so forth, second atom idea and then the events how Christ saves us and his incarnations in this life, death, resurrection, ascension, so forth. But within that broad framework it is an issue that is important for us even because it's controversial. Likewise important is to affirm as we will in our next section tonight the equally important idea of the necessity of preaching the gospel. I say it to my own shame sometimes reformed churches have been less than zealous for the gospel and that's wrong it is simply wrong. Furthermore it is an issue for me in terms of the biblical data itself. I believe it points in a particular direction of course good people disagree so we have a controversy. I have worked to try to present both sides fairly and to give you my own opinion. May we move on? I thank you for your understanding in that case and commend those matters to you for further study. Let us turn to the last topic of our course. We have studied together the doctrine of human beings, the doctrine of sin, the person of Christ, his saving work and lastly now the application of salvation, the application of salvation. Viewing salvation in its broadest dimensions we see it as planned, accomplished, applied and consummated just to locate on the theological map where we are. Salvation planned has to do with the doctrine of election. We are not there now. Salvation that is taken up in the last course spirit church and last things. Salvation accomplished has to do with Christ's saving work. We have just been there. Salvation consummated has to do with the resurrection of the dead,
final sanctification, our glorification, our justification in its final official outward form of God acknowledging us and acquitting us before the universe. It is kind of an exciting prospect. One that we don't think about. We will talk about each of those matters because our concern is with salvation applied and we call this whole area the application of salvation. It is a whole group of doctrines calling and regeneration and justification and sanctification and adoption and union with Christ and perseverance and conversion. Lots of things all at once. You say, you know, who invented all these? Some of you theologians invent these to keep us busy. God invented these. That is this all of this is a study of the grace of God. God planned to give us his grace before creation. He did the work necessary for grace to reach us in the cross and resurrection of his son. When we talk about the application of salvation, which is our concern now, we're talking about the grace of God actually impinging on our lives. God bringing his grace into our historical existence. In other words, the result of this is that we come to know the Lord. You say, well, I didn't know of all those things. I just somebody shared a gospel with me and I believed it true enough but the Bible considers this so important. It looks at it from these seven or eight different vantage points that we might glorify God for our salvation. That we might appreciate his grace again and again. So this is where we are the application of salvation. An immediate concern is, well, two concerns. Just jump to the four. One is the grace of God, as I've already mentioned, another is God the Holy Spirit and his operations because if we analyze these works, since God is a trinity, we can't separate the persons from one another. But nevertheless, almost always the Scripture attributes election to God the Father. Certainly, it is the Son who died on the cross and rose again, not in separation from the Father or the Holy Spirit, but certainly in distinction. The trinity is involved in the consummation. I want to not get into that now. I'll postpone that for the last course, Spirit Church and last things. As a matter of fact, I'm still thinking through the part of each person of the Godhead and that. But for right now, the application of salvation, whose work is it? The answer is the trinities. Can we specialize? Can we say one person is the main operator here? Surely it is God, the Holy Spirit.
Grace, let me read to you a little piece I wrote a few years ago for table talk, freely by his grace, the definition of grace, unmerited favor, we say. This is our stock answer. When asked to define God's grace, the words roll easily off our tongues, and that's the problem. The words roll off our tongues without passing through our minds or hearts. This definition is not incorrect, but like many common definitions, it is so familiar that it has almost become an empty slogan. It packs no punch. How then can we more meaningfully define God's grace? Simply put, God's grace is his good will toward those who deserve his ill will. It is his redeeming kindness shown to people who if they got what is coming to them would end up in hell forever. And I don't talk about hell lightly anymore after studying it for a couple of years, writing a book on it. I'll never be the same. Grace, therefore, is not only unmerited favor. It is favor against merit. Ephesians 2, 1-3, digs a deep hole for us sinners. Before we believed in Christ, we were spiritually dead, devoid of the life of God, verses 1 and 5. We must not confuse the spiritual death within activity for we follow the ways of the world, of the devil, indulging our sinful desires and thoughts verses 2 and 3. What did we deserve from God? Quote like the rest. We were by nature, objects of wrath verse 3. Due to our rebellion against our maker, we deserved his eternal wrath. This dismal picture of our condition, spiritual death, ungodly living, being objects of his wrath, is the backdrop for God's grace. But because of his great love for us, God who is rich in mercy made us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in transgressions. It is by grace you have been saved verses 4 and 5. Here is grace. Great love and rich mercy delivering sinners from death, ungodliness and wrath. The cost of grace. What is the cost of grace? For sinners who turn to Christ in faith, the cost is nothing. As we read in Romans 3, 22, 24, quote, this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ. Jesus, end of quote, grace is free. It is without charge to all believers. Although grace is free to us, it is costly to God. Romans 3, 25, 26 tells how God the Father sent set forth the Son as a propitiation in His blood. The Father punished His beloved Son with the wrath, our sins deserve that we might go free redemption and that we might be declared righteous in His sight, justification. We can summarize the cost of grace because it was so costly to God. To us who trust His Son, it is free. The appropriation of grace, how do we appropriate grace? Romans 4 answers loudly and clearly. By faith alone, not by anything we can do. Grace and faith are inseparably bound together. I wanted to use the word correlative, but I couldn't in a popular article. Grace and faith are correlative. They're inseparably bound together. In verses 13 through 17, Paul rejects the notion that Abraham merited God's promise through law keeping. That is impossible argues, Paul, because the law does not save it brings wrath. Quote, therefore, the promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace. The promise comes by faith so that it may be by grace. End of quote, verse 16. Grace establishes faith for God's kindness alone, provides the way of salvation, and believing not meritorious doing is the companion of grace, doers insult grace because they are ignorant of its cost. The goal of doers trying to add their feeble attempts to the saving work of Christ. Believers put their confidence in Christ alone. The sufficiency of grace, we can now understand the sufficiency of God's grace. In the words of 2 Thessalonians 2 16, quote, God the Father loved us, and by His grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope. End of quote. Grace is all we need to bring us safely to eternal life. It is also all we need to enable us to live the present life to the glory of God. God made this plain to Paul, quote, my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. End of quote 2 Corinthians 12 9. Enabling grace. Theologians distinguish saving grace from enabling grace. The former saves us from our sins. This is in my notes on page 125 as a matter of fact. The latter enables us to live for God day by day. We fail to ask why Paul begins and ends his letters with prayers that God's grace be granted to his readers. Is he praying that the believing churches and individuals to whom he writes would come to know God's saving grace? Hardly. He is praying that they would grow in their appropriation of God's enabling grace. Our response to grace, what then is our response to this abundant grace. Eternal gratitude is the answer. Here is the highest motivation of the Christian life to live quote to the praise of his glorious grace which he has freely given us in the one he loves, Ephesians 1, 6, and 7. Please turn to page 125 and let us think a little bit more deeply about God's grace. In light of this distinction we do not have time to look at all these examples but in light of distinction between saving grace and enabling grace. Now first of all let me say they are both grace. So we are looking at subsets of grace. It is one grace the hymn writer is right. His grace has brought us safe thus far and grace will bring us home. We can talk about saving grace, enabling grace, sustaining grace. I don't know, bringing us home grace. I don't know how to say it. Grace is from the beginning to the end. But I am distinguishing between two concepts. They are the same thing and yet they are inseparable and they are related but there is some distinction here where I am trying to say is in our extoling of saving grace and I am hardly against that we have minimized or maybe even overlooked and enabling grace. And the fact of the matter is we need God's grace to live the Christian life even as much as we need in God's grace to be saved once and for all. Ephesians 2, 8 and 9 will suffice for one proof passage for saving grace in the context in which I was reading before we then read. For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. Notice again grace and faith are correlative. They are inseparably bound together and this in the context I would render salvation I would explain and this salvation not from yourselves it is the gift of God not by works so that no one can boast. Evangelical Christians of all stripes agree salvation is by grace through faith. There is that's the concept of saving grace and it's in all those passages that are listed under that topic. We know about that we also need to learn more however about enabling grace. Now they are united. You don't get enabling grace without saving grace and in fact enabling grace is really saving grace viewed from another perspective. So I am not talking about a totally different thing but let me show you just two passages. 1 Corinthians 15. Paul says some things in his epistles he's so honest that we would never say. In 1 Corinthians 9 for example he says that he is all things to all people that by all means he says I might save some or we would never talk like that. We would never be so unspiritual as to say we save somebody. Now Paul is not being unspiritual friends and he is such an instrument of God in the salvation process he could talk like that. Oh he gives glory to God and he knows he didn't die on the cross for anybody but he surprises us. Likewise he surprises us here he tells how when he speaks of the resurrection appearances of the risen Christ he says last of all verse 8 he appeared to me also as to one abnormally born because well he explains in verse 9 for I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God. Watch this verse 10 but by the grace of God I am what I am. I would label that saving grace. He went from being chief persecutor to being chief proponent, main preacher is an astonishing twist. Talk about revolution he experienced one. We cannot even begin to imagine what was going on inside of that man when he answered when he asked the question when he received the answer from God in heaven to his question who are you Lord and the answer came back I am Jesus whom you are persecuted friends an explosion went off inside of him an absolute revolution can you imagine he did not lack for zeal but he acted ignorantly he thought he was serving God can you imagine and now the one he thought he was a false prophet the one he thought was a false prophet speaks to him from heaven and says I am Jesus good grief no wonder God put this something like scales on his eyes it was an object lesson blind people can get around very well in familiar surroundings okay they count steps and they others their other senses compensate but for somebody who has seen who has had sight all of his or her life to suddenly be struck blind boy it is fright absolutely frightening and here was Paul God wanted to show him how spiritually blind he had been for so long and he did a little object lesson on him all right all of a sudden he was physically blind and could not see anyway God's grace made Paul what he was from a persecutor into an apostle not only so and his grace to me was not without effect here's another one of those things we would never say because we're too super spiritual actually no I worked harder than all of them can you imagine him saying that he said he worked harder than all the other apostles yet not I but the grace of God that was with me friends this working for God with God's grace speaks of enabling grace it is grace that made Paul a Christian and an apostle when he was a persecutor and it is God's grace that enabled him to work very hard indeed second Corinthians 12 is my second passage to show enabling grace what I'm trying to say is we have unfairly pigeonholed grace into the saving grace category it's not wrong to put it there but it is wrong to only put it there and we've kind of trapped it in that little box and shut the box or shut the drawer if you will instead of seeing how grace pervades the Christian life in the New Testament we're not only saved by grace we live the Christian life by grace as a matter of fact three themes intertwine and say basically the same thing the New Testament could talk about the Holy Spirit empowering us it could talk about the power of God or could talk about the grace of God that's right enabling grace doesn't leave the the love dimension behind but the focus is on power enablement saving grace is more powerful than we realize but the element we most emphasize is good will favor compassion and it's not wrong but what I'm saying is grace involves both of these concepts the loving element is more prevalent in our conception of saving grace the power element is more prevalent in enabling grace we see it right here in second Corinthians 12 in this context of second Corinthians 12 Paul is apparently the person who was caught up to the third heaven and received well unspeakable revelations since they're unspeakable he doesn't speak about him but he does to say he was tempted to become puffed up about these things verse 7 to keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations there was given me a thorn in my flesh we don't know exactly what it is but it's some kind of a physical problem it's in his flesh perhaps problems with his eyesight as a result of some kind of an illness or something Galatians is sometimes correlated with second Corinthians along these lines I'm not going to speculate as to what the problem is but he was given a physical melody a messenger of Satan reminds me of Job 1 and 2 that notion is certainly Satan under God was allowed to smite Paul almost said Job both are true for God's greater purposes to torment me strong language three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me and in fact I named it and claimed it and it was no more doesn't say that all right three times an apostle prayed and he didn't get what he wanted it is perfectly justifiable this is not to be used as a cop out but God sometimes answers our prayers by saying wait keep praying my child I want to cultivate our relationship I'm not ready to do that now other times he answers our prayers by saying no if we as human parents I'm thinking of the language now of the servant on the mount evil though we are okay know how the good gifts give good gifts to our children our heavenly Father knows how the good give good gifts he also knows when to say no if your little one was crawling around the kitchen floor and seeing you put the silverware away and was just fascinated by those bright shiny things silver things known as sharp knives and was crying a play with them there's no way you'd let the baby play with the knives the baby thinks they're good here she wants better so shiny and look you know you're holding them mommy your daddy I want them a loving child a parent would never be moved we would tell him no if they started crying and we tried to distract them and so forth but we would not give them that which we knew was bad for them regardless of how much they wanted it in the same way but extrapolated to an infinite degree God is much wiser than we are and knows what we need Paul wanted this removed I can't blame him for asking God wanted him to have it three times God said no my grace is sufficient for you notice the parallelism for my power is made perfect in weakness enabling grace is very much akin to the power of the Holy Spirit and a believer's life it's another way of talking about that idea therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses so that Christ's power may rest on me he could have just as well said Christ's grace that is why for Christ's sake I delight in weaknesses insult hardships persecution difficulties for when I am weak then I am strong I wish we had more time I commend the notes to you not for final examination testing purposes I have had to cut down that so as not to kill you you've got a lot of work to do but for your own study and Lord willing ministry I see a misspelling under two B that word believers is misspelled under one C straighten it out for me if you would that's not really that important but the application of salvation is important and beginning with the grace of God and the Holy Spirit is very important we need to take a break and I'll come back and just tie in what we will study in other courses about the Holy Spirit so as to pull things together in our minds let's take a break