I can relate whole heartedly with falling in love with the person of Jesus in my teenage years based on reading the Gospels. Very cool to hear someone I admire greatly has had a similar experience.
Wow. Incredible. Just a small section summarized: Limited Atonement (the Sovereignty of God in salvation) is not about excluding people, particular redemption is about safeguarding the achievements of the cross from being robbed of their power. While the atonement might not embrace everyone without exception, everyone it does embrace is brought all the home to heaven. Sins totally forgiven, bonds totally broken. The only precious redemption is a perfect redemption (as the hymn To God Be the Glory says, “Oh perfect redemption, the purchase of blood, To every believer the promise of God).” Everything we love about the cross, the certificate of decrees that were hostile to us, all of it was nailed to the cross and has been taken out of the way (Col. 2:14) because the atonement was perfect. If we inject provisionality or potentiality into this atonement at any point, you are taking the burden for salvation off of the strong shoulders of Christ and placing it on the backs of ruined sinners who cannot fend for themselves in this arena (Eph. 2:1-3), if they could Christ wouldn’t have had to come. Christ didn’t come to help us get saved, He came To Save Us. Accomplished (Jn. 17:4) Finished (Tetelestai) (Jn. 19:30). Anytime we deprecate the perfection of the atonement, which we must do when we universalize it, we rob it of what makes it precious and what ultimately makes it Good News. As it becomes, “Now I have to do something” even if it’s just “believe”. When this creeps in, there is no way to not become your own co-Savior at that point. JI Packer said, what it really means is that “Christ saves us with our help” and what that means is, “We save ourselves with Christ’s help” and this isn’t the atonement that Scripture declares. Christ has satisfied the demands of God’s law, He has discharged the demands of justice and He holds His arms out to us and says, “If you come to me I will in no wise cast you out!” Ours is a Savior who has done everything that His people could dream of to be reconciled to God and we are welcome to this Sovereign Savior. He doesn’t offer us the opportunity of salvation or a potential salvation, but a real, mighty, accomplished true salvation that we simply receive with the open, empty hand of faith (Luther). Not, as our faith is kind of “paying God” (We've paid you with the currency of our faith now You give us our salvation). Limited atonement is a “freeing” doctrine as it looks to Christ and away from ourselves. The doctrine of particularism dethrones the idol of man in our hearts and exults in it’s place the true and living God. No one who listens to the whole discussion will come away disappointed.
The main stumbling block with the doctrine of election are the natural objections Paul takes us through in Romans 9, which is "Why does he [God] still find fault?" Why does God create people he has no desire to save and then sentence them to eternal torment? That is where the mind logically goes and what keeps people on this hamster wheel. It seems to leave us with only a few options: 1) God should not have created anything because of the potential for sin 2) God saves everyone and is therefore unjust 3) God determines who he will save based on his own sound judgment, or good pleasure, and we should learn to trust in that never attempting to put ourselves above the Most High and judge his character. Faithful Calvinists choose the third option, which is essentially what Paul replies with in Romans 9:16-20.
I have to agree. Not only have I been actively remodeling my personal "Christianity-lite" misconceptions of Christ that inundate the body of Christ, but all of the images that I grew with. I am not dogmatic about it, but it certainly rubs against the grain especially considering that the glorified Christ is no longer the "suffering servant" who was slain, but the "mighty lion who reigns".
I suppose in all fairness, Mike is expressly teaching about the atonement of Christ and not the future return of Christ, but if my preference were even of any value, no picture at all or perhaps a picture of a cross may do.
I love this! What an awesome interview, and what an excellent guest! Thank you so much for this.
Amazing interview! I thank God for you all
I can relate whole heartedly with falling in love with the person of Jesus in my teenage years based on reading the Gospels. Very cool to hear someone I admire greatly has had a similar experience.
Wow. Incredible. Just a small section summarized: Limited Atonement (the Sovereignty of God in salvation) is not about excluding people, particular redemption is about safeguarding the achievements of the cross from being robbed of their power. While the atonement might not embrace everyone without exception, everyone it does embrace is brought all the home to heaven. Sins totally forgiven, bonds totally broken. The only precious redemption is a perfect redemption (as the hymn To God Be the Glory says, “Oh perfect redemption, the purchase of blood, To every believer the promise of God).” Everything we love about the cross, the certificate of decrees that were hostile to us, all of it was nailed to the cross and has been taken out of the way (Col. 2:14) because the atonement was perfect. If we inject provisionality or potentiality into this atonement at any point, you are taking the burden for salvation off of the strong shoulders of Christ and placing it on the backs of ruined sinners who cannot fend for themselves in this arena (Eph. 2:1-3), if they could Christ wouldn’t have had to come. Christ didn’t come to help us get saved, He came To Save Us. Accomplished (Jn. 17:4) Finished (Tetelestai) (Jn. 19:30). Anytime we deprecate the perfection of the atonement, which we must do when we universalize it, we rob it of what makes it precious and what ultimately makes it Good News. As it becomes, “Now I have to do something” even if it’s just “believe”. When this creeps in, there is no way to not become your own co-Savior at that point. JI Packer said, what it really means is that “Christ saves us with our help” and what that means is, “We save ourselves with Christ’s help” and this isn’t the atonement that Scripture declares. Christ has satisfied the demands of God’s law, He has discharged the demands of justice and He holds His arms out to us and says, “If you come to me I will in no wise cast you out!” Ours is a Savior who has done everything that His people could dream of to be reconciled to God and we are welcome to this Sovereign Savior. He doesn’t offer us the opportunity of salvation or a potential salvation, but a real, mighty, accomplished true salvation that we simply receive with the open, empty hand of faith (Luther). Not, as our faith is kind of “paying God” (We've paid you with the currency of our faith now You give us our salvation). Limited atonement is a “freeing” doctrine as it looks to Christ and away from ourselves. The doctrine of particularism dethrones the idol of man in our hearts and exults in it’s place the true and living God.
No one who listens to the whole discussion will come away disappointed.
Did I miss the book’s title?
The main stumbling block with the doctrine of election are the natural objections Paul takes us through in Romans 9, which is "Why does he [God] still find fault?" Why does God create people he has no desire to save and then sentence them to eternal torment? That is where the mind logically goes and what keeps people on this hamster wheel.
It seems to leave us with only a few options: 1) God should not have created anything because of the potential for sin 2) God saves everyone and is therefore unjust 3) God determines who he will save based on his own sound judgment, or good pleasure, and we should learn to trust in that never attempting to put ourselves above the Most High and judge his character. Faithful Calvinists choose the third option, which is essentially what Paul replies with in Romans 9:16-20.
I ask in love. But why would you put a false image of Christ on the book "To save sinners"?
I have to agree. Not only have I been actively remodeling my personal "Christianity-lite" misconceptions of Christ that inundate the body of Christ, but all of the images that I grew with. I am not dogmatic about it, but it certainly rubs against the grain especially considering that the glorified Christ is no longer the "suffering servant" who was slain, but the "mighty lion who reigns".
I suppose in all fairness, Mike is expressly teaching about the atonement of Christ and not the future return of Christ, but if my preference were even of any value, no picture at all or perhaps a picture of a cross may do.
This is so reformed. 🔥
It is quite simple actually. Christ's sacrifice certainly doesn't lack the power to save everyone. So it isn't about capability but about actuality.