The Problem with Particular Atonement is the How and Not the Who, and Why Protestants Do What They Do
Presently, I am supposed to be completely out of the loop regarding TANC Ministries because I am preparing to take a state exam for medication certification. However, when perusing what Andy is up to while I am gone, I was made privy to this article by Kevin DeYoung.
I am 60 years old, and in my mind, of all the people I have been made aware of in my life to varying degrees, DeYoung is the epitome of the consummate lackey. While shockingly apt at thinking the thoughts of others, he is more likely to be hit by space junk in the pulpit than having an original thought in his own cranium case. DeYoung makes everyone a mind reader; just read Protestant orthodoxy and you are reading everything that is in his mind.
Anyway, the article is particularly rife with opportunity to further demonstrate why the Protestant Reformation was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. One may marvel at the audacity of elementary error being dressed up in such scholarly splendor.
DeYoung begins by writing, “The doctrine of limited atonement–the L in TULIP–teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”
First of all, salvation is neither atonement or redemption. In the absolutely insane month of August coming up, I am actually going to add another project that Andy is going to participate in although he doesn’t know it yet. We are going to put together a video series to challenge a group of pastors who are meeting in August with the following: for crying out loud; you are pastors, please start using biblically correct words when talking about salvation.
However, though not New Covenant salvation according to the Bible, atonement is the basis of the Protestant false gospel; Jesus is a cloak (covering) for unrighteousness that denies the new birth.
And, salvation is not redemption either. Redemption is the saving of the weak/mortal body from eternal death in the resurrection, not the saving of the soul. Making salvation and redemption the same thing enables Protestantism to endorse progressive justification or “final justification.” While constantly feigning belief in present assurance, they constantly refer to “final justification” being future because, you know, that’s when it is final. Why is salvation on the installment plan so important to them? Well, if you are signed, sealed, and delivered, what do you need them for?
DeYoung continues: “The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.”
Look, I could post on every sentence in this article, but I only have time to hit the highlights and I really don’t even have time for that. We let the likes of DeYoung assume “those” means “individuals.” Nope, in fitting with the rest of new birth justification and biblical election, more than likely, biblical election refers to groups of people and not individuals; particularly, Jews and Gentiles.
Moreover, another prime example of how Protestant scholars believe that “good grammar makes bad theology” follows here: “This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him…and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people… and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride.”
Read Ephesians 5:25. Where in the world therein does it say that the church is the bride of Christ? So, He loves the church like a bride, that doesn’t make the church His bride. When we say, “Let’s be like a tree and leave” to convey a desire to leave a certain place, does that make us a tree?
Like all Protestant ventriloquist puppets of whom DeYoung is chief, he uses presuppositions to deceive; “those” always means “individuals,” and the main point of election is the WHO and not the HOW. It’s all about who God decided to save, and not how He saved them. He saved them by sending His only Son to the cross to end the law. The Bible states that the righteous demands of the law were “nailed to the cross.”
So, who did Christ die for? Everyone born under the law. Who was born under the law? Everyone. End of discussion…and the end of so-called “limited atonement.”
But WHY are Protestants hellbent on this version of election/predestination? Because the church is a sanctuary city from the doctrine itself. It’s the paramount good cop/bad cop approach. You ever heard of John Calvin’s “power of the keys”? Whatever the Protestant elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, or something like that. Bottom line? If the elders like you, you’re in. This ministry has documented DeYoung and other Protestants saying this in no uncertain terms. And they say it because its formal Protestant orthodoxy.
So, what is the why?
The essence of sin itself, a desire to control others.
paul
Smoking Gun: ACBC is a Nationwide Divorce Mill
Orig
inally published July 13, 2015
For a more detailed discussion on this book, check out Susan Dohse’s book review and commentary here
Christ made it clear that what God has brought together NO man is to separate. Does this mean God predetermines every marriage in regard to particular spouses? I doubt it. This probably refers to God’s covenant of marriage and the theology of vows. At any rate, death, unrepentant adultery, and an unbeliever who abandons their believing spouse are the only exceptions.
How does one live happily with a spouse who has become difficult? For Protestants, that is a hard question because the focus has been on justification for 500 years with little emphasis on the biblical art of godly living (sanctification). When you are supposedly sanctified by a perpetual “return to the gospel afresh”… knowledge on how to repair a marriage is going to be what it is today, practically nonexistent. And of course, living by the same gospel that saves us (not saved us) is a very complex matter needing the ongoing “research and development” of gospel-centered experts.
Add to that: Protestants don’t even have justification right. Little wonder then that the institutional church is a train wreck after 500 years of scholarship and trillions of hard-earned laity dollars. What is the answer? The answer is a laity movement that will reclaim the priesthood of believers seized by Gnostic hacks dressed in biblical garb.
The answers will come through one Lord, and one word interpreted by individuals indwelt by the Spirit who gives all knowledge needed for life and godliness liberally. In case we forget the obvious, “I was only obeying the elders” will not cut it when you stand before Christ and His blazing eyes of fire. The Nazis were very good at being “subordinate,” and many were hanged accordingly. I realize Reformed elders claim God gave them His authority to rule on earth, but you may want to rethink that claim.
As predicted, the biblical counseling movement overseen primarily by the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC) has become a divorce mill via its efforts to build marriages that “look like the gospel.” And the smoking gun is a book written by Leslie Vernick titled The Emotionally Destructive Marriage: How to Find Your Voice and Reclaim Your Hope that is widely used among ACBC counselors.
The obvious problems here are first seen in the title of the book. As Christians, is it really our goal to, “find our voice”? I thought it was our goal to please God in every circumstance. Secondly, the idea of emotional destruction is subjective at best and a ticket to do anything you want at worst. To make the point here, Google “American Civil Law.” In a culture judging anything that causes bad feelings to be abuse, such an approach to “biblical counseling” should give one pause.
Thirdly, why do Christians need a 240 page book written by a serial regurgitator of other people’s thoughts to FIND hope? You would think that by now Christians would be fairly certain about where hope is found.
Chilling is the examination of the 61-question survey found in the book that supposedly determines if one is in an abusive relationship or not. In the hands of a person that is unhappy in their marriage, the outcome will be a foregone conclusion. It’s like asking a chicken if Colonel Sanders is an emotional abuser.
The lynchpin becomes the ACBC’s loose interpretation of 1Corinthians 7:12-16. If the spouse is already an unbeliever, emotional abuse is tantamount to departing from the marriage even if they have not left physically or filed for divorce. Church discipline takes care of the pesky obstacle of the “abusive” spouse being a believer—they can be declared an unbeliever…actually MADE an unbeliever by elder authority supposedly vested to them by God. This paves the way for sanctified divorce.
It boils down to this: whoever is handed the book by the counselor is coronated as the abused spouse. Be sure of this: if both counselees in a bad marriage were handed the book, both would be guilty of the same thing. This is the smoking gun: it depends on who the ACBC “biblical counselor” wants to label abusive for whatever the motives might be.
I think a present situation that I am involved in says it all. I know enough about the situation to know that if the person I am talking with took the book’s survey, the other spouse would be judged as emotionally abusive hands down. The other spouse was handed the book because of who the ACBC counselor wanted to label “abusive.”
This is the niche service that Leslie Vernick now supplies to ACBC counselors.
paul
Protestant View on Atonement Dies Hard
Updated July 14, 2017
Most Facebook discussions aren’t pretty. Oh, they start out innocent enough, but they have a tendency to turn ugly in a hurry, especially when you challenge pet doctrines. It doesn’t take long for the name-calling and other ad hominem attacks to ensue. But every once in a while you encounter a group of individuals who express a modicum of politeness and respect even if you don’t manage to persuade them with your argument.
I hold out some hope for the folks involved in the following discussion. As you can see for yourself, their overall tone of civility leads me to believe that some of them just might be persuaded one day (perhaps as the lingering words of the argument echo in their minds and they have time to reflect on them and the Holy Spirit uses them to bring about conviction).
The roots of Protestant orthodoxy run deep, as the many well-documented examples here at Paul’s Passing Thoughts affirm. Therefore it doesn’t really come as any surprise that so many Christians demonstrate such a woeful misunderstanding of a doctrine such as “The Atonement” or hold on to that same misunderstanding so vehemently. Yet when so many Christians begin with the assumption that believers still sin, it only stands to reason that the obvious conclusion is that some need for perpetual “covering” of that sin is required.
Therein lies the error. Believers don’t sin because sin is ENDED. Sin is ended because they are born again. And if sin is ended, then there is no more need for a covering!
~ Andy
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” ~ Galatians 3:24-26
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” ~ Hebrews 10:26
New comments were added to this discussion this afternoon:
New comments added as of 7/13/2017
New comments added July 14, 2017
Why Born-Again Believers Should Offend God Less Than Unbelievers
In yet another example of how Protestantism is wrong about virtually everything; its orthodoxy calls for a belief that there is no moral difference between Christians and non-Christians. This ministry has documented a vast number of citations that make this point other than the constant affirmation thereof heard on Christian radio, TV, and everyday conversations. The belief that Christians actually offend God less than unbelievers is often dubbed “moralism.”
The home fellowship gospel is stated by the practice of meeting in homes which exemplify a literal new birth into the family of God, or the “household of faith.” The household is God’s literal family. It is also a body versus an institution, and gifts versus authority; the only authority is the head of the body, Christ. The body has one head. The focus is cooperative group contribution to the knowledge of Christ, not groupthink.
Elders are apt to teach and protect the group from error as each discerns for themselves whether or not the teaching seems right according to Scripture. Hence, the elder is a contributor to the body like all the other gifts. Eldership is a gift, not a position of authority. In the body analogy, the organs and members are gifts for edifying the body.
Key to understanding all of this is the new birth and how it changes a person’s function in the real world.
The beginning point is the believer’s relationship to the one law, or the Bible. One law—two relationships: condemnation and love or under law and under grace, and also “under the power of sin.” “Under grace” does NOT mean you are no longer under a law, it is just a different relationship to the law.
What does being “under sin” mean? Sin is empowered by the law. The Bible is VERY clear on this. Sin uses the law to create particular “desires” within any given person. Those desires can include a desire to kill people, a desire to steal in order to get someone’s stuff, or a desire to have sex with animals. How these desires pan out regarding complex paradigms vary, but one major consideration is conscience and consequences (which is a dynamic that takes place in everyone) versus the intensity of the desire which is increased through practice.
Simply stated, sin’s ability to use the law to condemn is the source of its power to tempt and enslave through ignorance of love and strong desires; again, the Bible is VERY clear on this.
When condemnation is removed; sin is stripped of its power.
However, sin still resides in the mortal body. It can still use the law to tempt a believer, but not enslave a believer. Due to the weakness of mortality, sin can harass a believer, but the believer can actually say “no” to the sinful desire and use the same law that once condemned the believer to learn how to “control the body.” Not that the body in and of itself is evil, but whether or not the body is used to fulfill good desires or evil desires.
In the new birth, two primary things happen: the believer is given a new heart that loves God’s law, and is no longer under the condemnation of the law. The same law that once brought only death now brings life and life more abundantly. This gospel is the same gospel that Moses preached: “I set before you this day life and death; choose life.” It has always been the same gospel though applied differently at points of historical eschatology which will not be addressed in-depth here.
Suffice to say here, the Old covenant law was a vessel to which ALL sin IS imputed and was increased for the full expression of Christ’s love. The law was increased over time for the purpose of death and life both; and both condemnation and love.
Christ came to establish the baptism of the Spirit through His death and resurrection. This brought two things into consummation: the baptism of Jew and Gentile into one body, and the official ending of the law’s condemnation. Until Christ came, the law held the believer’s sin in captivity, hence Old Testament believers are sometimes referred to as “the captives.” However, that ministry, in a sense, remains for unbelievers in our day because “all sin is against the law.” Every sin committed by an unbeliever is still imputed to the law, and when they believe, all their sins are vanquished along with the law; they are no longer “under law,” or more specifically, no longer “under condemnation.” For this reason the Old covenant is “passing away” but is not yet ended completely.
And here is another way believers are changed: the Bible teaches that sin itself has a core desire; to control and enslave. People under condemnation condemn as a way to control others in the same way sin controls them via condemnation. This is the crux of marriage counseling; most marriage problems flow from a spouse’s desire to control the other spouse through condemnation.
So, Christ came to die and END the law of condemnation for those who believe, and was resurrected by the Spirit so that the law could be fulfilled through love by those who follow Him in death and resurrection. When Christ said He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law, He wasn’t talking about the law of sin and death; He was talking about the law of the Spirit that sanctifies. This issue boils down to the Spirit’s two uses of the one law; to convict the world of sin and the judgement to come, or to sanctify. The believer dies with Christ to the old law, and is resurrected to the new law. The law of the Spirit of life has set us free from the law of sin and death. The denial of two uses of the law is tantamount to an outright denial of the new birth. Moreover, identifying one’s self as a “sinner” is tantamount to declaring self as yet under the condemnation of the law. In every biblical case, a “sinner” is “under law.”
If one’s old self died with Christ, and the same resurrected with Christ as a new creature, good works, viz, LOVE is not also substituted; truly good works flow from the believer and are not a substitution. And ironically, unbelievers know this intuitively (probably because the works of the law are written on their hearts according to Romans 2:12-16) and expect good behavior from professing Christians.
What do unbelievers hear from “believers” instead? “There is no perfect church; We are all just sinners saved by grace; Come and join us anyway and we will have one more hypocrite.” Unbelievers know better. The primary thing that keeps them from being saved is fear of radical change. Most unbelievers have a better grasp of the gospel than any Protestant and that includes all of its various stripes such as Baptists and all of their stripes.
The belief that most people don’t accept the gospel because they want to deny their sin is false. Unbelievers know they have a sin problem. Hence, “If they see how readily we admit that we are sinners when we humble ourselves, they will be encouraged to confess their sin” is a false notion. Not so; they don’t fear staying the same and seeing their sameness in and deeper and deeper way with the help of being “edified” at church; to the contrary, they fear the radical change of the new birth. Instead of “edifying unto good works,” the edification is the ability to see the depths of our totally depraved selves. The lost world will not buy this package.
There is only one thing that will dissuade fear of real change; when they see our godly, free, and happy lives and want the same for themselves. A testimony of staying the same will neither impress or convince.
In all of this, how can one stay the same and still be “saved”? You know, “Come just as you are.” There is only one factor left in the equation: faithfulness to the authority of the institutional church where staying just as you are lest you have a “righteousness of your own” will usher you into heaven by faith alone in sanctification. The crux of that is something that the church has in common with sin itself…
…a desire to control others with its splendid temples giving testimony to the sale of salvation on an installment plan.
These pagan temples are set against the believer’s body that is the Spirit’s temple where the members are used to offer living sacrifices to God in sanctifcation. Confining worship to a temple made with hands denies the temple of the new birth; our very own bodies that are gifted to edify the family of God.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
14 comments