John Piper on Limited Atonement

[Sonoftheday]

I recently listened to John Pipers messages over the TULIP. He presented the L in a way I had never heard it and I was wondering how it aligned with the reformers position on the doctrine.

He basically said that Christ died potentially for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.

 

[MW]

Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'd have to hear the message, but if you've presented it accurately I fail to see how it's consistent with the confessions, which present the death of Christ in rather different terms. I don't see any justification for Christ "purchasing" irresistible grace. Christ's death is the atoning sacrifice for the elect, and only for the elect - the irresistible grace of God is something that is applied by God in order to bring forth faith in His elect, for whom Christ died. To say that Christ died "potentially" for each and every individual seems to me to be a kowtowing to those who really don't accept L.

 

[Barnpreacher]

What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:

4. Irresistible Grace
The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.

In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did." And Paul speaks of grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). God gives many entreaties and promptings which are resisted. In fact the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament is one protracted story of resistance, as the parable of the wicked tenants shows (Matthew 21:33-43; cf. Romans 10:21).

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" To which Paul answers: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:20f).

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.

Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures.

In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, "He draws all men, not just some." But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's "drawing" is why some believe and not others.

Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"

Notice two things.

First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.

Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why "there are some who do not believe." We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."

Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".

NOTE: It should be obvious from this that irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. That would even be a contradiction in terms. On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their best interests.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice the two kinds of "calls" implied in this text.

First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.

But then, secondly, Paul refers to another kind of call. He says that among those who hear there are some who are "called" in such a way that they no longer regard the cross as foolishness but as the wisdom and power of God. What else can this call be but the irresistible call of God out of darkness into the light of God? If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith. This is irresistible grace.

It is further explained in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God...It is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Since men are blinded to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, "Let there be light." It is in fact a new creation, or a new birth. This is what is meant by the effectual call in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness but as the power and the wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed. This is irresistible grace.

Another example of it is in Acts 16:14, where Lydia is listening to the preaching of Paul. Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." Unless God opens our hearts, we will not heed the message of the gospel. This heart-opening is what we mean by irresistible grace.

Another way to describe it is "new birth" or being born again. We believe that new birth is a miraculous creation of God that enables a formerly "dead" person to receive Christ and so be saved. We do not think that faith precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has begotten us anew. "Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1).

When John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God, but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man.

Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the new-born child is faith. Thus new birth is the effect of irresistible grace, because it is an act of sovereign creation—"not of the will of man but of God."

What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

This is poison?

 

[toddpedlar]

What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:

4. Irresistible Grace
The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.

What you noted was his teaching on Irresistible grace (at least, some of it, since
he apparently has taught that irresistible grace is something Christ purchases for the
elect). What about L? His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

 

[Barnpreacher]

What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:

4. Irresistible Grace
The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.

What you noted was his teaching on Irresistible grace (at least, some of it, since
he apparently has taught that irresistible grace is something Christ purchases for the
elect). What about L? His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

Oh boy, it's been a long day. I posted the wrong thing.

 

[Barnpreacher]

5. Limited Atonement
The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he canceled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.

Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.

The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy—IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need—namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."

There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:

John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.

In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom Thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.

John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.

Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.

This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.

If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.

Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.

Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9,does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)

One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.

Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Here is Piper on Limited Atonement.

 

[Davidius]

I don't see anything about universal potentiality in that statement.

 

[cih1355]

I read the article. He is saying that Christ did not die for all people in the same sense. It sounds like he is saying that Christ's death accomplished one thing for the elect and something else for the non-elect.

 

[DMcFadden]

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Sounds like a pretty classic John Owen to me. What am I missing?

 

[natewood3]

Piper does say that Christ purchased all graces that are applied to the believer, including irresistible grace...

 

[JohnOwen007]

His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

 

[reformedman]

His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

To say that Christ died for those who are in hell is to say that his death had no power to save them. Further, it is to also infer that something else was the saving factor; something aside from the death of Christ saves: man's will or anything else as an example.

It becomes an heretical position if Christ's death does not garauntee a saving result.

With Piper, it is more like poison than heresy since although he affirms general redemption as his confession, he does not apply it in practice (by his right understanding and position of other soteriological points.)

 

[Barnpreacher]

His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

 

[MW]

Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

Hugh Martin (The Atonement):

Others – to make the Atonement indefinite and universal, save as special grace may subsequently apply it to the elect – tell us that Christ’s death, or Christ by His death, removed legal bars. The argument with such as speak thus might be long; but it may be short. I ask them, Was “removing of bars” the immediate and intrinsic action of Christ’s person in dying on the Cross? Was this the action in and by which Emmanuel died? Did He die in and by removing bars? No, they will say: for they must reverse the terms: “He removed legal bars by dying.” Precisely: they are speaking of result – the result of His death. But I demand a scriptural, doctrinal description of the very and immediate act of Christ in His dying, and in His doing the will of God in and by His death. And, with the Scripture in our hands, the demand which a searching theology will never fail thus to make, is met, – the question answered.

There was immediate action of Christ in His death; and it was official and public action. Private, or personal, or individual it could not be; for in that case His holiness was at once a legal bar to divine justice smiting Him in death, and a moral bar to His unauthorised parting with His life Himself. It was public and official action. He was not merely charged with a cause, but with an office, and with a people in that office to personate; not merely with a cause to maintain, but with the interests of a people whom He should represent, and redeem by representing them. His action was priestly and representative action; representative of persons – of persons definitely, numerically, individually known: “I know my sheep.” And the representative priestly action in itself was simply what Jesus adds: “And I lay down my life for the sheep.” That is not result; result never can in the nature of things express the intrinsic causal action. That is not result: it is Christ’s immediate dying action itself. And it is Redemption – not removal of bars. The very and immediate action of Christ in dying for His people is intrinsically their redemption. He offers Himself to God for them a sacrifice for their sins; and herein He offers them to God with Himself. And it cannot be too emphatically affirmed, or too gratefully believed, or too resolutely contended, that this is their redemption – their redemption, efficacious, complete, and infallible. While mere “removal of bars” is a mockery, and the theory thereof leaves utterly unanswered the question, What did Christ do in dying? It recognises no action, and consequently no priestly action, in the Cross. It overthrows the Priesthood of our Lord.

 

[MW]

John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):

The doctrine of the double reference is an oil-and-water mixture; it is opposed to Scripture; no one who has subscribed the Confession of Faith can consistently hold it; it adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism; it endangers the doctrine of the Atonement; and it is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied.
(1.) Those who hold it are in a transition state, and occupy no fixed dogmatic ground. Sometimes they seem staunch Calvinists, and at other times utter Arminians. They try to move on the boundary-line between the two systems, and would fain keep a foot on either side. But the fence is too high to admit of this. They therefore display their agility in leaps from side to side. But this is very fatiguing work, and must soon be given up. They will find that they must walk on either side. As it was an Arminian bias that moved them to these gambols, the most probable finale is, that they shall utterly abandon the Calvinistic side.
(2.) It is opposed to Scripture. As seen in Bible light, the death of Christ is indissolubly connected with (a) the covenant love of God, of which it was the gift, that it might be the channel; (b) with imputed sin as its procuring cause; (c) with redemption as its infallible result. To insist on a reference of the death of Christ to any who were not loved by God, whose sins were not imputed to and atoned for by Christ, and who shall not be saved, is, therefore, utterly opposed to Scripture. The way to conceal the manifest unscripturalness of this position is to raise the dust of a double reference around it, by saying that it is not in the same sense Christ died for the elect as for others. The special reference is not denied, it is so plainly taught in Scripture. But where in Scripture is the other? A reference to 1 John ii. 2, has been given as an answer to this question. But if there is a passage more conclusive than any other against the doctrine of a double reference, it is that very one. It plainly teaches that in the self-same sense in which Christ is the propitiation for the sins of those whose cause He pleads as an Advocate, He is so for the sins of the whole world -- of all to whom His atonement refers. In all those passages which seem to some to teach the doctrine of a universal reference of the death of Christ, it is seen connected either with love, or suretyship, or redemption; and if with either, it cannot possibly be a death for all. Calvinistic universalists are challenged to produce a passage from the Word of God which seems to support their view, not containing in itself or in its context one of these limitations.
(3.) No subscriber of the Confession can both intelligently and honestly maintain the doctrine of the double reference of the Atonement. It is not in the Confession; it is inconsistent with several of its statements: and a view of the question as to the reference of the Atonement was present to the minds of the Westminster divines utterly incompatible with any such doctrine.
The doctrine of the double reference is not in the Confession of Faith. The only attempts made to find it there have resulted in utter failure. All that can be said by its advocates is, that there is one sentence in the Confession with which it is not inconsistent. That sentence is, “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the Eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father.” All that can be maintained is, that the new doctrine does not contradict that statement, because it indicates no reference at all, and connects no result with the satisfaction of justice. But why did Christ require to satisfy the justice of the Father? Was it not because sin was charged to His account? And why was he thus chargeable, but because He was the Just for the unjust? The idea of Christ satisfying justice except as the Surety of His people, and to the effect of purchasing redemption for them, is utterly opposed to the whole teaching of the Confession, and cannot therefore be in the passage quoted. And why are these words dissevered from what follows? Are not the obedience and sacrifice of Christ declared to avail not merely for satisfaction but for purchasing “not only reconciliation, but an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.” His work, finished on the cross, had all this efficacy in it for behoof of those for whom He died. To maintain that it availed to a certain extent for all, and to the full extent for some, is a doctrine utterly unwarranted by the passage referred to. If Christ died, He died with that whole design; and to that full effect He died for them for whom He died at all.
But the doctrine of the double reference is utterly opposed to some statements of the Confession of Faith. The doctrine of the Confession is, that Christ is “the Mediator and Surety” in order to redeem, call, justify, sanctify, and glorify a people whom the Father gave Him from all eternity; that in order “that He might discharge” that office, “He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil; ... was crucified and died; that “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all who are justified, and did make a proper, real, a full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.” In all these passages, the mediation of Christ, in its design, in the reference of its fundamental act, and in its gracious results, is restricted to the elect. What Westminster divine would say, Christ died for “the rest of mankind” whom God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice?”
There was a view of the question before the minds of the Westminster divines utterly incompatible with the doctrine of the double reference. The statements in the Confession bearing on the Atonement were adapted to the state of the question of the extent of the Atonement, as discussed between Calvinists and the French Universalists. Both parties held that Christ redeemed all for whom He died, and neither therefore could hold the double reference. The difference between them is indicated in the words -- “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually communicate the same.” The difference between the views of the French Universalists and the doctrine of the double reference is, that according to the former Christ died for all indiscriminately, and did by His death redeem them; while, according to the latter, election determined a special reference of the Atonement to the elect, in order to their redemption, but not excluding a reference to all, in order to something not very easily defined.
(4.) It adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism. It must have been originally invented by some weak Calvinist, who thought that the Arminian had an advantage which he lacked in plying sinners with the gospel call. The suasion of universal grace seemed in his view to give the other an immense practical power. He therefore stole from him as much as would place him on an equal footing in the practical use of doctrine. He remained ex professo a Calvinist, that he might keep hold of his creed, and became de facto an Arminian, that he might get hold of his hearers. And there are preachers not a few who seem to think that though their speculations must be conformed to the system of Calvinism, as the only scientific arrangement of “the things of God,” they must be Arminians when they deal with the consciences of sinners. The consequence is, that so far as a practical presentation of doctrine is concerned, they are Arminians, if they are anything. To tell men that Christ died for all, and that this is the basis on which the call to all is founded, is to quit hold of all that is distinctive in Calvinism in order to command the sympathies of a heart unrenewed. By such a form of doctrine many teach more than they intend. Its phrases suggest to many minds the idea of universal grace, and encourage them in a Christless hope. Any protest against universal grace which may be mingled with such utterances can be easily separated. The two elements are so incongruous that they will not combine: and in the hands of unconverted men it is not difficult to tell which shall be removed.
(5.) It endangers the whole doctrine of the Atonement. It is impossible to account satisfactorily for the death of Christ except by ascribing it to His bearing imputed sin, with a view to His making atonement for it. It is impossible to account for His being “made sin,” but by His substitution for a guilty people. But if men believe that Christ died for many whose sin He did not bear, whose surety He was not, and whose redemption He did not purchase, they are a-drift on a current which may carry them down to Socinianism. An Arminian, with his single universal reference, may in a vague indefinite form, hold by the doctrine of substitution, as he thinks of Christ as the representative of mankind, and may have some steadfast idea of atonement for sin in his mind. But believers in a double reference can have no clear view, and no firm hold of the doctrine of substitution at all. They are more in danger therefore of moving towards Socinianism, than even the undisguised Arminian. Generations may pass before that tendency is fully developed in ecclesiastical formulas, but the dangerous tendency is there, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
(6.) It is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied. It doubtless sprung out of a desire to find a basis for the offer of Christ to all. To search for it, in a universal reference of the atonement, indicated a suspicion that the Calvinistic system did not afford it. What helpless ignorance such a suspicion indicates! How sad it is to hear men, sworn to Calvinism, declare that without this theft from the Arminian stores, they could not preach the gospel at all! Do they believe that “Christ is all in all;” that God’s testimony regarding Him is true; and that they are commanded to preach “the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ” to every creature? If so, what can they desiderate in order that they may say to every sinner to whom they preach, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?” This is the Scripture version of the gospel call; and I can never hesitate to proclaim it, till I conclude that Christ is unworthy of being trusted, and God unworthy of being believed. The idea of the call being the offer of a gift, has driven the Scriptural form of it out of the minds of many men altogether. This other was the form it alone assumed in the thinking and teaching of “the Marrow-men.” To their successors it suggested more than these fathers meant. They began to regard it as necessarily an expression of love to the individual to whom it is addressed. They desiderated some sort of interest of all in Christ, before the call is accepted, in order to justify its being given. Extending the idea of the Marrow-men’s “deed of gift and grant,” they reached at last the universal reference of the atonement, while still stretching a long arm to keep a weak hold of the Calvinism of the Confession. They hesitate not to say that without the universal reference, they could not preach the gospel at all -- in other words, that this is the only basis they find for the call of the gospel. And what do they find there on which to base the offer? A reference that avails for no definite end, that secures no redemption, and that leaves those whom it connects with the death of Christ to perish in their sins. This, and no more, they find; and on this they base the offer of the gospel! Verily, if men cannot preach the gospel without this, it is difficult to see how this can help them. There is some carnal sense in the Arminian view, but this lacks even that. If Christ died to redeem all men, there seems something like a basis for a call to believe in Him to the saving of the soul. But this reference outside of that which election is held to have defined, and which connects the chosen exclusively with redemption, is a palpably unsatisfactory thing. Does it even avail to secure an offer of salvation to all? No one can say it does when millions have perished, and there are millions still on earth who never heard the gospel. To what effect then does it avail? To secure the extension to all of God’s providential goodness. And on what avails only to that extent the offer of salvation is based! What to me, an immortal and sinful soul, on the brink of eternity, is a message telling me that “bread which perisheth” was procured for me by the death of Christ! It is salvation I require -- it is for that I agonise. I care not for vague references. Give me a living Saviour, to whom I may commit my soul; give me a “sure word of prophecy” regarding Him; give me a divine command to believe in His name. Then and thus, and only then and thus, can my wearied soul find aught to lean on; and I shall count it both my privilege and my duty, to yield my homage to divine authority, my faith to divine testimony, and my trust to a divine Redeemer.

 

[JohnOwen007]

To say that Christ died for those who are in hell is to say that his death had no power to save them.

If the above rendition of Piper in the thread is correct he is saying that Christ died "for" people in two different senses. You are only assuming one sense here, and so your reasoning fails. It's critical we don't accuse someone until we've understood them.

Further, it is to also infer that something else was the saving factor; something aside from the death of Christ saves: man's will or anything else as an example.

The above critique also applies. Piper is not saying that Christ died for the non-elect in that sense.

Moreover, (as Richard Muller and Carl Trueman have recently affirmed) the reformed tradition has never seen Amyraldianism as a heresy. It may be on the outskirts of the reformed tradition (although there is much more historical work needed to make this judgment), but it is securely ensconced in the reformed tradition itself.

It becomes an heretical position if Christ's death does not garauntee a saving result.

And it would appear that Piper doesn't affirm this.

Do you really believe the above (Arminianism) to be a heresy? I submit that Socinianism is. But I suspect I'll be seeing many Arminians in heaven depsite what I believe to be their errors.

Piper is a towering example of godliness and piety who is to be respected In my humble opinion. I don't want to pick up stones to throw at him. There are plenty of logs in my eyes that need to be examined first.

God bless you.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?

 

[toddpedlar]

His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

Whether God has used his life and ministry, and the extent of his humility (neither of which I disagree with in the slightest) have nothing to do with whether the Amyraldian view of the atonement is poisonous or not. Note that I didn't call PIPER poisonous. Rather, I made the statement that IF he teaches Amyraldianism, then he is teaching a poisonous doctrine. Perhaps you think that position is extreme... and if so, so be it - but please don't paint me with such a broad brush as to accuse me of judging a Brother in Christ. I never said a thing about Piper himself.

 

[MW]

His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and that is poisonous.

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.

 

[toddpedlar]

Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?

God may exercise judgment whenever he so chooses. When he actually undertakes to pronounce judgment isn't a question of justice at all. Furthermore, whether it is a demonstration of mercy and/or grace, in fact, to allow sinners to wallow in their sin for a lifetime, and dig deeper and deeper and deeper into entrenched sin throughout their lives rather than snuff them out early on is a question well worth thinking about.

 

[MW]

Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?

God has His purpose of grace to fulfil to the elect. He bears with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."

 

[Barnpreacher]

Piper was lumped in with Amyraldianism, poison as it was called. Were all the facts known about this? Did anyone bother to check his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?

 

[Barnpreacher]

I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."

Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.

 

[DMcFadden]

How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?

I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.

Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly.

If I understand Piper correctly, he is arguing for a universal aspect to the atonement in some sense but fully accepts Owen's argument for the limited atonement as doctrinally necessary. As I read the Reformed tradition, there are legitimate differences between Calvinists over how the admittedly limited atonement applies in ways that do not cross the line into Amyraldianism. Can one even be a four pointer and say . . .

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

What am I missing????

 

[toddpedlar]

The comments concerning poisonous doctrine were made not about Piper, but about what he was said to preach about the atonement. Note the caveat in my first response to the OP... "IF you have correctly represented what Piper preaches" (and what was represented as Piper's teaching was quite poisonous). There are, in the quoted statements, VERY problematic things that Rev. Winzer has already pointed out. So... I'm not sure why you ask "Did anyone bother..." etc. Again, it is doctrine that is being tested, and found wanting ; NOT Piper himself, in his person.

 

[Barnpreacher]

I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.

Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly. What am I missing????

I think you're missing the fact that comments were made without checking all the facts first.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Whether God has used his life and ministry, and the extent of his humility (neither of which I disagree with in the slightest) have nothing to do with whether the Amyraldian view of the atonement is poisonous or not. Note that I didn't call PIPER poisonous. Rather, I made the statement that IF he teaches Amyraldianism, then he is teaching a poisonous doctrine. Perhaps you think that position is extreme... and if so, so be it - but please don't paint me with such a broad brush as to accuse me of judging a Brother in Christ. I never said a thing about Piper himself.

I'm not so sure we can separate a godly person and poisonous doctrine so easily (although at some level they can be separated). If we believe (with the Puritan tradition following Scotus) that theology entails practice (i.e. theology = head, heart, and hands), it naturally follows that ungodliness and "poisonous" doctrine must have some connection.

I would think that because Piper has so much that is right doctrinally, and so much that is laudible in practice, these are indicators he's unlikely to be serving "poison"--a strong word that conjours up the idea of great damage.

Every blessing.

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."

Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.

How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.

 

[Barnpreacher]

The comments concerning poisonous doctrine were made not about Piper, but about what he was said to preach about the atonement. Note the caveat in my first response to the OP... "IF you have correctly represented what Piper preaches" (and what was represented as Piper's teaching was quite poisonous). There are, in the quoted statements, VERY problematic things that Rev. Winzer has already pointed out. So... I'm not sure why you ask "Did anyone bother..." etc. Again, it is doctrine that is being tested, and found wanting ; NOT Piper himself, in his person.

And do you still hold to this after reading his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?