Saying Christ died for you if you believe in Him is problematic and is actually what drove me away from the limited atonement view (even when I used that argument back in the days I used to affirm such a view).
There is no if in Christ dying for you. Regardless that it is affirmed here by those who affirm Christ died only for the elect that faith is gift of God, not of ourselves, the moment you make Christ died for only those who believe, you attach faith as a condition for Him dying for you. And that is a real problem since the gospel invitation is itself believe He died for you to be saved.
More, it is a problem since it makes faith looks like it earns Christ's death for you, though no one of this view holds to faith does that. But having the if condition on Christ dying for you creates a real problem there.
Can't believe a gospel that is merely hypothetical for you either. We are told to believe the gospel preached to us. Paul said the gospel he preached that was first heard and received unto salvation is indeed Christ crucified for you. He didn't say Christ died for only if you believe. Nor did Christ and His other apostles.
Putting the if condition ironically is in its own way synergism with a vengeance. And folks, who affirm limited atonement, hold to it to avoid any form of synergism. But can't avoid it in practice if you make Christ's death for you only if you believe.
It puts the assurance back on you rather than in Christ crucified. And worse, it is simply not biblical. Better to let Scriptures speak: Christ died for all, all men, world, whole world, those who denied Him, etc.
Limited Atonement means that Christ died for the elect, those who are born again by the Spirit who then believe according to his good pleasure.
ReplyDeleteWe recognize that limited atonement on paper is Monergism.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the functional or practical side of it.
How do we know Christ died for us if what He did is limited to the elect? How do we know we are the elect Christ died for?
The usual answer is Christ died for those who believe. Yes, it is context of God electing them to that faith and giving them regeneration to that faith.
The problem remains though is that it is still from our side of heaven saying we know Christ died for us based on fact of our faith.
Yes, faith as result of monergistic grace is affirmed here. But it is no assurance to say faith we possess is any proof Christ died for us.
And it puts it conditional on us having faith (from our side of heaven) for it to be true Christ died for us even if from God's side He elects to give us that faith.
It is subjective. Not objective. We don't always feel forgiven. We don't always feel like we have proper faith or strong enough faith. What then? Can then we say Christ died for us?
For us, Monergism as doctrine is only as good as the assurance we can have Christ died objectively for us. And for us, what is true for all becomes objectively true for us.
That goes for His saving work done for all at the Cross 2000 years ago. And that goes for His saving work delivered unto us objectively in means of grace from outside ourselves (hence the double jeopardy argument don't work on us since we don't hold to the cross is possessed by us at all until grace through faith in Christ who comes to us through such means).
In our paradigm, real Monergism is not just on paper but also in practice and function. For us, it is in function and practice when our assurance is outwards based, not inwards based.
Limited atonement view tends to make folks (not all, thankfully) look inwards whether at own faith or worse fruits of faith to say that is proof Christ died for them.
That is where we see the view undercuts Monergism.
The error lay ultimately in the reformed false teaching on the incarnation. Luther saw this immediately in Zwingli. Luthers "tower experience" that recovered the Gospel was specifically about Christ actual presence, the donum, in which he realized the Gospel is not just for you but actually Christ delivered for real word and sacrament. There is, thus, no work in the least to do to get to God, not even so called faith's speculation as in Calvin's supper, for Christ is truly on the alter in my mouth, bread, wine, water audible word. Thus NO distance to traverse and as Luther states plainly "this sacrament IS the gospel" and "Christ IS the true sacrament. See PURE monergism no distance to bridge and traverse not even by (false) speculative faith. That is what monergism is and means, the reformed truly do not grasp Lurher, eps. In bondage of the will Luthers paralell to the catechism. Thus, EVEN under a limited election scenario in which Christ is not present incarnate, the extent limited or not, does not matter a single bit as to monergism vs synergism. Why? Because of The man-God's saving forgiving presence or not. One cannot avoid synergism if Christ is not present in Word and sacrament period, without this the difference between rome, geneva, erasmus, arminianism or any other reliogion is merely reshuffling the deck chairs on yhe same synergistic fallen religion. This is why Luther called them all enthuisiasm a.k.a. original sin.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself, why do we Lutherans say Christ's presence is sacramental? Ever really ponder that? The term sacrament comes over from the Latin meaning sacred oath. This will help in English, it means sacred promise. And when God promises as in, this is My body, I am with you always as in make disciples by baptizing them in My name (and He can never vacate His name), etc. then it is so as in "let there be...". Thus, when we say Christ's presence is sacramental that is no mere word play or philosophical explanation. No, rather it is saying Christ's presence is promissory to which our only reply is faith's amen (this is most certainly true). He made a promise, a sacred oath, a sacrament, and it is realty whether you believe it or not but only "amen" receives it, and thus you HAVE what the sacrament gives as Luther says, forgiveness and where there is forgiveness of sins there is life (ie Spirit) ans salvation.
ReplyDeleteWhat does bondage of the will feel like or what is its experential nature?
ReplyDeleteWell it feels like is experienced as NOT trusting that God in Christ is actually present as he says he is and thus I am absolved and thus posess eternal life and salvation for sure. It feels like NOT trusting that pastor's absolution is indeed God's absolution. It feels like the teaction "but it is only bread, wine, water and a mere man and only God can forgive". It feels just like what original sin was/is, seeking God in the nude without His words in, with and under the masks of his creatures and apart from creatureliness (ie water, bread, wine and a human's voice) and to thus seek faith "spiritually".
That's bondage of the will, that's bondage to synergism.