I got exposed to so much questionable teaching at Golden Hills Community Church that I got tired of what appeared to be creative use of out of context Bible verses. A. W. Tozer mentions the problem of Evangelical Popes and it appeared at times that I was dealing with the teaching of some unnamed Evangelical Pope that was favored by the teacher at Golden Hills Community Church.
Jesus atoned for the sins of all mankind as God desires to save everyone. This is Universal Atonement which I don't believe in. Even if I was not a Calvinist and I was only a Lutheran; if God knows who has the Free Will before the foundation of the world to chose those that would chose Him. God being the respecter of Man's Free Will to the point that He gives to the Son those that by His all knowledge He knew would chose God. Why would the Father make the Son pay for the sins of those that God knew would reject His unconditional love offer of Salvation?
A Lutheran says this is God's secret will and the Free Will Evangelical and the Calvinist shouldn't speculate on the extent of the Atonement. It is sin per the Lutheran to try to figure out God's secret will on such matters as the Atonement. Thou shall not speak where the Bible is silent as if you have figured out something that is part of God's secret will. Being in agreement with the Lutherans that the Calvinist and Free Will Evangelicals love to fight on issues that the Bible is not clear; I have to believe that God is not the great child abuser that the Atheist desire to make him. Therefore, in response to the Atheist, I must point out that in my opinion God has enough love for His Son that He doesn't punish the Son for the sins of those that God knows will not accept the offer of Salvation. As to the reason the offer of Salvation is not accepted I don't desire to argue but I believe the Father loves the Son and finds no need for the Son to Atone for sins that unbelievers will spend eternity in Hell paying for. Calvinist say that God doesn't ask for sins to be paid for twice, one by the Son and then again by the Sinner. This makes sense to me even if the Lutherans say this is still speculation even if Bible verses appear to speak of the Son saving all that the Father gave Him. Of those You gave Me, none were lost. Jesus is the perfect Shepard of His Sheep and the Sheep know His voice.
As to why Jesus must pay for the sins of all mankind when Free Will Evangelicals admit not all will be saved and God knows those that have the Free Will to be saved before the foundation of the world is the grand mystery to me. I can only assume that one or more Free Will Evangelical Popes teach this as being God's truth and their parrots teach what the Free Will Evangelical Popes have taught them to teach. I hate to agree with the Atheist that the Father is the Cosmic Child Abuser of His poor Son. I prefer to believe that the Son will rejoice in saving all that the Father gave Him as that is what the Bible clearly states. I therefore reject the teaching of any Free Will Evangelical that Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind on the cross.
One of my many supports for my viewpoint is the book "The Forgotten Trinity" by James White.
The Discovery 2 teacher at Golden Hills Community Church is the cause of this blog posting.
Charles Spurgeon on Atonement link
Charles Spurgeon on Atonement link
Christ’s Limited Atonement by Charles Spurgeon
Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they
say, ‘It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have
died for all men; it commends itself,’ they say, ‘to the instincts of
humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.’ I admit
there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is
much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I
will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on
His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who
were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for
all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into
this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had
been cast away because of their sins.
Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Savior, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of heaven.
Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Savior, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment