Posts Tagged ‘Atonement’
Is Matthew 1:21 A Valid “Proof text” For The Reformed Believer Or Not?
One of the verses that I often cite when explaining my transition to a reformed theological position is Matthew 1:21. The context of his verse is an angel telling Joseph that Mary has not been unfaithful to him and that the child she is carrying of the Holy Spirit. The angel tells Joseph what to name the child and for what reason the Holy Spirit has supernaturally impregnated her. See for yourself:
Matthew 1:18-25 (18) Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (19) And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. (20) But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (21) She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (22) All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: (23) “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (24) When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, (25) but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Verse 21 conveys a very specific message. It says that “He will save His people”. Note that it does not say that” He will make them savable” or “He will make salvation possible”. I need to make this distinction because of an article recently posted over at Society of Evangelical Arminians under the title of “Matthew 1:21: How Calvinists Blind Side A Text“. As you can imagine, the title caught my eye so I read it. It is a short article but it gives a good understanding of what the Arminian postition is. The Article starts with the following paragraph:
One of the more inane prooftexts for Calvinism is Matt 1:21, “…for he will save his people from their sins.” Calvinists argue that this is a statement of definiteness, that it does not say that Jesus will merely provide the opportunity of salvation for “his people,” but instead, that Jesus will definitely save his people. They claim that this flies in the face of Arminian assertions that through Jesus, God provides a way for everyone to be saved.
The quick Arminian retort is simple: “What!? Do you Calvinists think that Arminians deny that Jesus will definitely save his people??? Of course, we Arminians affirm that Jesus will definitely save his people, just as the text says.”
The author correctly and briefly begins by stating the Calvinist position on this verse. (For those who might be wondering the word inane means: lacking significance, meaning, or point, i.e. silly). He also addresses a common objection Calvinists present to Arminianism: that in Arminian theology Christ’s death only makes salvation possible, it does not directly save anyone.
In my own personal experience, which includes believing in this way myself and then, once I accepted Reformed Theology, discussing this topic with others who still hold this view, most will say the same thing the author does. They will quickly and easily affirm that Jesus’ death will save His people. But, when questioned on specifics of how, most actually come to the position that Jesus’ death only makes salvation possible. At which point most who believe this way no longer want to continue the discussion because they see the hole in their theology but are unwilling to address it.
The author continues
The ultimate question is a matter of defining “his people.” Indeed, in Matthew’s Gospel, the issue which is pounded is whether “his people” consists of Abraham’s descendants only, or whether “his people” is actually the community of faith, consisting of both Jew and Gentile believers; obviously, Matthew favours the latter position.
I agree with him here that the ultimate question is who makes up His people. This brings us to the point of Election. Who gets to define who His people are? Do we or does He? It is my contention that only God, as Creator, has that right. The Creator is always greater than the creation.
If you say that His people are defined by us, then that brings up several questions that must be answered. How can God be truly sovereign if we have the power to decide who make up His people? Why would Jesus choose to bear, on the cross, the sins of those whom He knew would never choose Him? If Jesus did bear, on the cross, the sins of those who would not choose Him then on what basis does God punish them (because the penalty has already been paid by Jesus)?
In conclusion, Matthew 1:21 is a Calvinist proof text. The author of the post has missed the point of what is being proven though. It proves that there is a definite group of people who are known as His people. We must then move on to find out who these people are and how they become and stay His people.
Do you agree with my assessment? If not, why? What is your understanding?
The Atonement: Universal or Particular (Limited)?
This is one of the “hot button” issues in the debate between reformed and non-reformed believers.
Reformed (Calvinistic) brothers believe in a particular (or limited) atonement. They say Jesus died on the cross to save only the Elect. That He accomplished His intended task which was to save the Elect. They cite verses like Matthew 1:21 to make this point. It says “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” [emphasis added] This position says that only the Elect will have the opportunity to be saved and that all the Elect will be saved because this was the intention from the beginning.
Non-reformed (Arminian) brothers believe in a universal atonement. They say that Jesus died for every and all men but that the atonement is only effectual on those who knowingly and willingly accept it. This position basically says that everybody will have an opportunity to accept the call to salvation but only some will do so. They cite verses like John 3:16 to make this point. It says “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [emphasis added] This position says that people must agree to accept the gift of the atonement before it is applied to them. Basically it says that Jesus died only to make salvation possible for all people.
This was a very brief description of the two alternatives. Much longer posts could be written about both positions but that is not my purpose here. I have a simple purpose: to get you to share what your position you hold and why. So here is the question: DID JESUS DIE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE OR TO MAKE SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE? DO YOU BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL OR PARTICULAR ATONEMENT? WHY? PLEASE GIVE YOUR REASONS (WHATEVER THEY MAY BE).
Did Jesus Remove The “Legal Obstacles” To Salvation For All Men Or Just The Elect?
This question was discussed yesterday in the theology study group I have joined. It is an interesting question. The group is currently reading and discussing Curt Daniel’s book The History and Theology of Calvinism. We are in chapter 57 which is titled: The Extent of the Atonement. In a section of the chapter discussing the dual aspects of atonement the following paragraph appears on page 423:
D. His son, A.A. Hodge, followed in this vein: “Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in some sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it” (Outlines of Theology, p. 416).
The last sentence (which I have put in bold type) is which inspired the question. As you can guess, a vigorous discussion ensued. Some of the people present agreed with the statement but most disagreed. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of “removing legal obstacles” was Justification. Is Hodge saying that Christ justified any and every man? If so, then why are not all people saved? Others made the point that this equates to a univeral atonement. We are going to examine this issue further and discuss again at our next meeting. I was shocked in our discussion to learn that the author (Curt Daniel) of the book asserts that the early Calvinists all believed in a universal atonement. He said it was not until Beza came along that Limited Atonement began to be taught. At times like this I wish I was better read in the writings of the historical figures. It does motivate me to focus my reading more in that area.
What do you think? If you are an Arminian I would expect you to fully agree with the statement. If you are a Calvinist then you are probably not in agreement. Have you considered this issue? How do you answer this question?
The Atonement…Limited By Who?
If you have followed my blog any at all then you know that I have been studying Reformed Theology for a little more than a year now. I started out (at least I thought) as somewhere between Calvinist and Arminian but I realized several months ago that I had actually always believed in 4 of the 5 points of the TULIP. The one problem I was having was with Limited Atonement. I realized and acknowledged that everyone but a universalist (someone who believes that all people will end up in Heaven) understood that the atonement made by Jesus for us was limited. The only question was who did the limiting. I started out thinking that we limited the atonement by our choice to accept or reject Jesus as Lord and Savior of our lives. I would say that the Atonement was sufficient for everyone but only effective for those who chose to accept the gift of salvation from Jesus. I also realized that this understanding of the atonement did not fit logically with the other four tenants of the TULIP. That did not change the fact that I want to believe this way. That is what makes it so hard…I have many years invested into this belief. So I have been working through this and I have been getting gradually closer to accepting the full Calvinist understanding of the limitation of the atonement.
One of the passages that has really helped move me is found in Matthew 1:21. It says
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
In our Sunday School class we are going through Matthew this quarter. I happened to be teaching the lesson that included this verse. It hit me like a ton of bricks. I had read many people’s explanation about God limiting scope the atonement but had not really accepted it and then I read this verse. I had read it before….how many times I am not sure but it never jumped off the page at me like it did this time. I am not claiming a new revelation but I am saying I have a more accurate interpretation / understanding now.
Now to the question. Who limits the Atonement? Does God limit the scope (meaning that it is only for the Elect) or do people limit the effectiveness (meaning it is for everyone but is only applied to those who choose to accept God’s gift of salvation)? Who has the power…God or man? I light of Matthew 1:21 we would have to agree that it is God and only God. Notice what Joseph was told by the angel in the vision. The angel tells Joseph what, who, and for what purpose the baby was being born. I want to focus on the purpose for a minute. We see here that before Jesus was born God had already set His task and that task was to save His people from their sins. His people….. Let me say it again….His people.
Well that brings the obvious question. Who are His people? The Bible answers this question for us in John 6:44. It says
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
So here we see the Jesus’ people are those that the Father draws. But this does not completely answer the question. It just leads to another question and that is…Who does the Father draw? That is a hotly debated question. Click here and here and here to read some posts that discuss this. One of the most obvious passages that answers this question is Ephesian 1:3-6. It says
(3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, (4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love (5) he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (6) to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
As we can see in verses 5 & 6, God chose whoever he wanted “according to the purpose of His will.” The Father draws whoever it pleases Him to draw. The Bible tells us in other places that this choice is not based on anything done or any faith foreseen by God. The choice is not earned in any way and it is not a result of God’s knowing that the people would choose Him.
So, to recap. God chooses whom he wants before the foundation of the world and draws them to Himself. He does this for His good pleasure and will. Once drawn, God gives them to the Son. They are His to make atonement for. He makes the atonement on the cross (salvation is actually accomplished) and then serves as the Good Shepherd ensuring that none who are His are not lifted up on Judgment day. From all of this there seems to be some good biblical evidence that God intended to limit the atonement in eternity past. Makes sense…right? Actually it does, but I still am having trouble shaking off the desire to believe the atonement was universal in scope. For me though, Matthew 1:21 was a big step in that direction. How about you? Does Matthew 1:21 help you?
The Problem with Universal Redemption
This was posted over at The Reformed Mafia. The author touches on the major problems associated with the Universal Redemption position.
What do you all think about his list of major difficulties?
A New Discovery…..Sort Of
(Matthew 1:20-21) (20) But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (21) She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” [ESV]
My Sunday School class is in the book of Matthew this quarter. If you use the Explore the Bible curriculum then so are you. The above verses were part of our first lesson of the quarter. The context of these verses is this: Joseph and Mary are betrothed (similar to being engaged) but they are not yet allowed to live together. During the betrothal period, Mary is found to be pregnant and Joseph knows for sure that he is not the father. The only possibility remaining is that Mary had committed adultery. As Joseph was preparing to divorce her (they were considered legally married under Jewish law during the betrothal period) an angel speaks to him in a dream and tells him that Mary has not committed adultery but is part of God’s plan to bring the Messiah into the world. The angel told him what to name the child and for what purpose the child was being born.
While I was preparing to teach the lesson, the last phrase of verse 21 practically jumped off the page. Now, I had read this before but had just assumed His people meant those who chose to accept Him. I never gave it a second thought but it floored me this time. The implications are staggering. Do you realize what they are?
We all know that Jesus came into the world to seek and to save (Luke 19:10) but I had assumed that meant to offer salvation to everyone (because that was what I had always been taught). Verse 21 above actually proves that Jesus’ purpose in coming was limited in scope before He was even born. He was coming to save His people and only His people. The text does not even suggest that He was only making salvation possible.
The second part of the phrase says that He will save them from their sins. This is another way of saying what He said in the first part of the phrase (save His people). Not only was there a particular group or set of people that Jesus was going to save but there was a particular set of sins that He was going to save them from. Wow!! Do you see the limited scope now. Had you noticed this before?
Until I started to study theology, I never would have noticed this phrase. Now, sometimes it seems as if I am reading the Bible for the first time. It makes me wonder about how my Bible study time could have been more productive if I had known then what I know now. But then, I know that I was not spiritually mature enough then.
What do you think? Do you get the same meaning from these verses or do you have a different interpretation?
