Theology Exam Misrepresents Reformed Theology.

Willo · Nov 13, 2008

AHHHHH!!!!! I just had a theology exam in which this question appeared:

59. Most (perhaps not all) people who limit the extend of the atonement, do so because:

(a) their theology is shallow
(b) they are in the Dispensational/premillenial camp
(c) they are in the extreme wing of the Reformed camp
(d) they could be characterized as being "liberal"

Can you guess, which one the lecturer deemed the correct answer? I refused to answer the question, stating that both Reformed and Non-Reformed limit the atonement to a certain extent, I also challenged it on the fact that the question was biased.

I went to speak to my lecturer about it, and he said "It may be wrong, but it is the best answer, and I want the students to have that answer." This met with me pointing out that it is an unfair question and a misrepresentation of Reformed theology, he basically said "Who cares." Then said if I wanted to get the question removed or fixed I would have to write a complaint to the college showing how it is in error and how it is not "extreme".

So, my reformed (extreme) brethren, can you help me out. How would you respond to this, and demonstrate that Limited Atonement is not extreme.

Thanks

Josh

drstevej · Nov 13, 2008

Might take him a copy of the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession.

larryjf · Nov 13, 2008

I would have perhaps answered the question the way that i thought they wanted it answered and added a note:

"It's better to limit the extent of the atonement than to limit its effectiveness."

ReformedChapin · Nov 14, 2008

I would have written

e) its biblical

bradfordl · Nov 14, 2008

If you are attending a non-reformed seminary, you're going to run into a lot of that. Might as well get used to it.

If it's not a seminary, then you're probably up against similar garbage in your other courses, such as with evolution and so on, how do you deal with that?

xapis · Nov 14, 2008

I go to Liberty and have seen a lot of this stuff.

drstevej · Nov 14, 2008

Some of you needed a rep surge.

mlqurgw · Nov 14, 2008

Willo said:
AHHHHH!!!!! I just had a theology exam in which this question appeared:

59. Most (perhaps not all) people who limit the extend of the atonement, do so because:

(a) their theology is shallow
(b) they are in the Dispensational/premillenial camp
(c) they are in the extreme wing of the Reformed camp
(d) they could be characterized as being "liberal"

Can you guess, which one the lecturer deemed the correct answer? I refused to answer the question, stating that both Reformed and Non-Reformed limit the atonement to a certain extent, I also challenged it on the fact that the question was biased.

I went to speak to my lecturer about it, and he said "It may be wrong, but it is the best answer, and I want the students to have that answer." This met with me pointing out that it is an unfair question and a misrepresentation of Reformed theology, he basically said "Who cares." Then said if I wanted to get the question removed or fixed I would have to write a complaint to the college showing how it is in error and how it is not "extreme".

So, my reformed (extreme) brethren, can you help me out. How would you respond to this, and demonstrate that Limited Atonement is not extreme.

Thanks

Josh

First I would cite the many Reformed articles, confessions and commentaries showing it is not an extreme but essential doctrine of Reformed theology. I would then write an article which shows it to be a Biblical doctrine. Possibly then I would write an article contrasting the unlimited view with the Reformed view. In all I would point out that the label "limited atonement" is better understood as particular redemption.

mlqurgw · Nov 14, 2008

This may help. I know I have posted it before but it is just easier to do it again rather than post a link. Yes I wrote it.

Particular Redemption

Let me begin by saying I am not very fond of the term limited atonement. All but Universalists limit the atonement in some way. I prefer the term Particular Redemption as it speaks more plainly to the teaching of the Scriptures and leaves less room for misunderstanding. I will take as my text John 10:11. I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. Now if that were the only passage of Holy Scripture that speaks to the doctrine of a definite and particular redemption we would still be bound to believe what it says. There seems to me to be absolutely no wriggle room in this statement by our Lord.
I want to speak to this issue from 3 perspectives as the Scriptures speak: Christ as our Surety, Christ as our sin bearer and Christ as our substitute. It is my purpose to show how and why we can trust Christs work for all our salvation.
A proper understanding of the atonement of Christ is crucial to the Gospel. There really is no Gospel without it. Let me see if I can explain: The good news of the Gospel lies in the truth of what Christ accomplished on the cross. Either He, by His death, actually accomplished redemption for someone or His death really means nothing. Where is the good news in an atonement that didnt atone? Where is the wonderful message in a redemption that that didnt redeem? How can a sinner look to a Savior with confidence who didnt actually save? The only hope a sinner can have is that Christ did actually make an atonement for his sin. This is the ground of assurance we preach and believe. Our hope is in the finished work of the Savior.
Now our text says that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. No one took His life, they had neither the authority nor power to do so, He gave it up for the sheep. He repeats the fact that He lays down His life for the sheep again in verse 15 of John 10. He makes it even more plain in verses 17and 18 of the same chapter. He told Pilate that he had no power over Him unless it was given him from above. (John 19:11) Christ laying down His life for the sheep was a voluntary act on His part. There was no force or coercion involved. Infinite love and fathomless mercy toward the sheep moved Him to act.
This brings us to a question: How is it possible that Christ could voluntarily lay down His life for the sheep? It is true that no court in the world would allow such a thing. No righteous judge could possibly put to death an innocent person. God says in Proverbs 17:15, He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemeth the just, even they both are an abomination to God. How then can God be righteous and put to death that One who was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners? The answer rests in the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was no mere man. A mere man has no authority to lay down his life because his life doesnt belong to him. All men answer to a higher authority, God, and have no right to give that which doesnt belong to them. That isnt the case with Christ. As God, He has every right over His own life and may give it as He pleases. He alone is able to lay down His life for the sheep. The word translated power in John 10:18 is authority.
Are you still with me? I know I have taken the long way around to get here but I believe it was necessary to lay a foundation in order to properly grasp the meaning of Scripture when it speaks of Christs atonement. So with what has been already said in mind lets now look at 3 ways the Bible speaks of Christ. I hope to answer the question as to how God can righteously put to death His darling Son in the place of chosen sinners. Once that has been answered we are able to see that the death of Christ on the cross was for the sheep alone.
Christ our surety.
The writer to the Hebrews tells us in 7:22 that Jesus was made a surety of a better covenant. What is a surety? The modern idea of a surety is like a co-signer on a loan but that isnt the Scriptural concept. We have 2 examples given for us that will take us a long way in understanding what the Scriptures mean by a surety. The first is in Gen. 43:9. Judah becomes a surety for Benjamin. As a surety he agrees to bear all the blame for any failure. He takes upon himself full responsibility and by doing so relieves Benjamin of guilt for his failure to return. The second we find in Philemon 18. Paul became a surety for Onesimus. In essence Paul is saying that his debt is mine, I make it mine and agree to repay all he owes. Because Paul became surety no debt could be charged to Onesimus. He must go free. The debt is now Pauls to repay. Onesimus no longer owes anything to Philemon. So we see that a surety doesnt agree to pay only the part that is left unpaid, as a co-signer, but takes the whole debt in its entirety. The debt becomes solely his who is surety and that one for whom he becomes surety must go free because he no longer owes anything.
In the Covenant of Grace, made between the three persons of the Godhead before the foundation of the world, Christ became Surety for all that the Father gave Him. (John 6:39) As the Great Shepherd of the sheep He took full responsibility for them and must bear the blame for any that are lost. As their Surety He guarantees their safety and must bring them into the sheepfold. (John 10:16) If He fails to do what He agreed to do then the blame isnt on the sheep but on Him. Again, as the Surety of the sheep He took all their debt as His own. In that everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure He said, Whatever they owe I will repay. They must go free. Justice no longer can seek satisfaction from them, they have a Surety. The creditor can no longer require payment from them, they have a Surety. They are free from all debt and blame; their Surety has taken it as His own. We have a beautiful picture of Christ our Surety when the men came to take Him in John 18:7,8. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
There are some in this world who are not the sheep for whom Christ became Surety. In verse 26 of John 10 we find our Lord telling some men that they believe not because they are not His sheep. He was neither their Surety nor their Shepherd. If He had been He couldnt have said those words to them.
This thought ought to strike terror in the heart of unbelievers. How awful it will be to stand before the judge of the whole earth without a Surety. No wonder it is said in Rev. 6:16 that they will cry for the mountains and the rocks to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Do you have a Surety? If you believe on Him who is the Surety of a better covenant you do. Trusting Him alone as taking your debt and making it His own is evidence that He is your Surety.
Christ our sin bearer.
Next I want us to look at Christ the sin bearer. There are several passages of Scripture that speak of Christ bearing sin. Probably the most well known is Isa 53. In verse 6 we read that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. In verse 11 we read that He shall justify many for He shall bear their iniquities. And in verse 12 we read He bare the sin of many. In what way did Christ bear sin?
Sin incurs guilt. If I rob a bank it makes no difference whether I am caught I am still guilty of bank robbery. I have committed a crime and deserve the just reward of my deed. I bear the guilt for my crime. Peter tells us in 1Pet. 2:24 that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. The great mass of guilt that was the burden of all the elect of God He took upon Himself. He bore it as a burden that was His own. He suffered under the heavy weight of it. The guilt of sin was imputed to Him in an act of justice. We read that the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. A transfer was made from the sinner to the Savior. (Remember what I said about Christ being the only one who has the authority to do such a thing) We have this typified for us in the scapegoat. Lev. 15:21,22
We read that Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the scapegoat
confessing the sin of the people putting them on the head of the goat typifying a transfer of guilt. In verse 22 we find that the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities. The scapegoat is then led away by the hands of a fit man (I love the way the KJV puts it) into the wilderness and let go never to be seen again. In the same way Christ, as our scapegoat bearing the sin of His people, has born sin away so thoroughly that God says of it that it shall be looked for but shall not be found. Jer. 50:20 He bore it away as far as the East is from the West. How far is that? North meets South at the poles but East never meets West. You may travel East forever without ever traveling West. He has removed our sin so completely that even God who sees everywhere cant find it. He carried it away in His own body on the tree, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances against us taking it out of the way nailing it to His cross. In Hebrews 1:3 we read that He has (notice it is past tense) purged our sins. That means it is completely removed and no longer exists. When you purge something not even a small remnant of it remains. It is gone. Even the sin that I do today and will do tomorrow is gone. Christ bore it away.
Christ our substitute.
Next is Christ our substitute. The passage that speaks to this is 2Cor. 5:21. I will be the first to admit that the word substitute isnt in the Scriptures but certainly the idea is. 2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. An old preacher friend of mine once said, God must first do something for Himself before He can ever do something for the sinner. We said earlier that sin incurs guilt. There is something else that sin incurs; it incurs the wrath of a holy and just God. He cannot just overlook and forgive sin. We are able to do that because we are ourselves sinners in need of forgiveness. He has sworn and will not go back that the soul that sins must die, Ezek. 18:4. Strict unbending justice demands the death of the sinner and before mercy can be granted justice must be satisfied. If God were to be merciful and forgive sin without satisfying the demand of strict justice He would cease to be God. His holiness and righteousness would fall to the ground. In Psa 85:10 we read that mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. There is only one way this can ever take place: in Christ our substitute. God hath made Him to be sin for us!
Can it be true? Was Christ made to be sin? Yes it is because He was. Remember what we said about no righteous judge putting an innocent man to death? The act of imputation that took place was no mere pasting on but a transfer of guilt. He didnt just carry our sin it became His. He took it as His own and died under the wrath of God because of it. With one tremendous draft of love, He drank damnation dry. Again I refer you to 1Pet. 2:24. We read that He bore our sin in His own body on the tree not on His body. Psalm 40 is generally accepted as a Messianic Psalm. It is interpreted as Christ speaking. Hear what He says in verse 12: Psa 40:12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me
The Lord our Savior Jesus Christ satisfied all the demands of justice against the sin of all for whom He was the substitute. He stood in their place and suffered as a sinner until wrath was spent and could no longer rise up against His people. God can never again punish any for whom Christ was the substitute. God can never be wrathful against any sinner for whom Christ died. He may, in love, chastise and correct them but never again punish them. God did something for Himself in order to be merciful to sinners. He exhausted His wrath against the sin of His elect and satisfied His strict justice in a perfect substitute.
Conclusion.
There are more ways that Christ is spoken of in the Scriptures having to do with atonement by Him that I havent dealt with: propitiation, redemption, ransom, Passover, sacrifice, the Lamb of God and Jehovahs Servant. All of which, when properly understood, speak of Him doing something for a particular people. Christ laid down His life for the sheep. There are no hypotheticals involved. As the Surety of His people He made their debt His. As their sin bearer He has removed their sin. As their substitute He stood in their place and put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb. 9:12
In light of these things the objections raised pale by reason of the glorious truth that Christ is the Good Shepherd that lays down His life for the sheep.

Beoga · Nov 14, 2008

drstevej said:
Might take him a copy of the Canons of Dort or the Westminster Confession.

That is a good idea. I would add on giving him a copy of Owen's Death of Death.

edie19 · Nov 16, 2008

drstevej said:
Some of you needed a rep surge.

you make me chuckle - aren't you a 4 pointer (no L)?

(I do recognize that you wouldn't think any of the answers are correct)

drstevej · Nov 16, 2008

edb19 said:
you make me chuckle - aren't you a 4 pointer (no L)?

(I do recognize that you wouldn't think any of the answers are correct)

I am a Christmas Calvinist (No-L) and I do think all the choices are biased digs at my full five petal Tulip friends

Calvinist Dark Lord · Nov 17, 2008

edb19 said:
you make me chuckle - aren't you a 4 pointer (no L)?

(I do recognize that you wouldn't think any of the answers are correct)

No, i think that drstevej is of the TULIP variety.

drstevej · Nov 17, 2008

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
No, i think that drstevej is of the TULIP variety.

Yep

Limited Attainment

Knight · Nov 17, 2008

I would suspect that "C" is the correct answer from the teacher's perspective.

I think you did the right thing. This question does not deserve an answer.

cygnusx1 · Nov 17, 2008

Willo said:
AHHHHH!!!!! I just had a theology exam in which this question appeared:

59. Most (perhaps not all) people who limit the extend of the atonement, do so because:

(a) their theology is shallow
(b) they are in the Dispensational/premillenial camp
(c) they are in the extreme wing of the Reformed camp
(d) they could be characterized as being "liberal"

Can you guess, which one the lecturer deemed the correct answer? I refused to answer the question, stating that both Reformed and Non-Reformed limit the atonement to a certain extent, I also challenged it on the fact that the question was biased.

I went to speak to my lecturer about it, and he said "It may be wrong, but it is the best answer, and I want the students to have that answer." This met with me pointing out that it is an unfair question and a misrepresentation of Reformed theology, he basically said "Who cares." Then said if I wanted to get the question removed or fixed I would have to write a complaint to the college showing how it is in error and how it is not "extreme".

So, my reformed (extreme) brethren, can you help me out. How would you respond to this, and demonstrate that Limited Atonement is not extreme.

Thanks

Josh

Refer your lecturer to the most widely accepted book on the Atonement during the 17 Century ; John Owen's Death of Death in the Death Of Christ Jesus . (1647)

It is still the definitive work on the Atonement.

A most scholarly work aiming at the errors of Arminians , Socinians and Amyraldianism, the School of Saumur, hypothetical universalism (Baxterites) whilst providing many arguments based upon scripture for a DEFINITE Atonement , not least of all that Christ as High Priest prays ONLY for the Church , not for the world just prior to His sacrifice.

For a most interesting read , go to this Link ;

"For example, his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, is probably his most famous and most influential book. It was published in 1647 when Owen was 31 years old. It is the fullest and probably the most persuasive book ever written on the "L" in TULIP: limited atonement. "

http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource...My_Life_Mortification_and_Universal_Holiness/

bradfordl · Nov 17, 2008

Thanks for the rep boost, Doctor. Good to see you hangin' around.

And Hi to Cyg. haven't seen much of you for awhile. Actually drank a six of Elepahant Beer in your honor over the past week. I found it in a local grocery, hadn't had one for over 30 years. Still good.

Hope both you guys are doing well.

cygnusx1 · Nov 18, 2008

bradfordl said:
Thanks for the rep boost, Doctor. Good to see you hangin' around.

And Hi to Cyg. haven't seen much of you for awhile. Actually drank a six of Elepahant Beer in your honor over the past week. I found it in a local grocery, hadn't had one for over 30 years. Still good.

Hope both you guys are doing well.

Cheers Brad od fellow , glad to see you are still about , did you see Mitch Mitchell died this week ?

well gotta dash , someone needs some beer

Radagast · Nov 18, 2008

Willo said:
(c) they are in the extreme wing of the Reformed camp

Fantastic! Let's replace a precise statement (they believe in the L in TULIP) by a vague abusive term!

Not what I like to see in theology courses... :sigh:

bradfordl · Nov 18, 2008

Cheers Brad od fellow

Od fellow? Hmmm. I concur!

Theology Exam Misrepresents Reformed Theology.

Reformed Bapist

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Member

Chapin = Guatemalan

Veteran

Soli Deo gloria!

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sola Scriptura

Legend

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Regular Member

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Knight of the Cross

Jacob the twister.....

Veteran

Jacob the twister.....

comes and goes

Veteran

Similar threads