Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Getting the L Out of Here. Part 8

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. ESV

What we see here is a comparison and contrast between two men. From the lesser to the greater we have our father Adam the first man. He embodied all of humanity so when he fell into sin we all fell with him. This is in a nutshell the Doctrine of Original sin. Therefore we are by nature sinful and unclean and deserve our Creator’s wrath both in this life and in eternity. The second man is God and man. In his perfect obedience, the cross and his resurrection he embodied all of humanity suffering the just punishment for all our sin. In that act all of humanity is reconciled. The debt is paid. The books are balanced. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 By faith we receive the fruits of that sacrifice. Romans 3:28 So those who go into everlasting perdition do so for not believing and receiving this gift. John 3:18

Our reformed want to claim a Limited Atonement. Saying Jesus died only for those who would believe They have a huge problem in Romans 5:18-19. Clearly it states that the righteous act of Jesus leads to justification and life for all. The many not the few. The other part of the huge problem is that if the first Adam embodied all humanity the second Adam embodies all as well since it is from the lesser to the greater. As the old saying goes “You cannot have it both ways.” Either not all are guilty for the transgression of Adam and are free and need no Saviour or they are guilty and need one. There again if it is true for the lesser than it is true for the greater.

Radical! By letting go of the L one can look upon the perfect life, death burial and resurrection of Jesus with full assurance since it is for all humanity. This is something which our reformed who buy fully into the L cannot do. I encourage all those stuck in this ambiguity to “Get the L Out.” Stop looking to your self for assurance and look to Jesus alone.

In the name of Jesus. Amen. †


Steve Martin said...

That was one 'L' of a post!

And then they always say, "so everyone is going to Heaven?"

No. But those who hear the gospel.

REALLY HEAR IT (by His grace)

Anonymous said...


That brings up another point about original sin and its ubiquitous connection to us without exception in and through the first Adam. If atonement was limited then the question begging is “did Jesus die for original sin”? For there is a difference in saying Jesus died for original sin which includes the sin nature we all have via Adam, and saying He died for the anger I had in my heart the other night toward a couple of folks. There is a difference in original sin and sin acts the exude from that original sin nature. If they say Jesus did not die for original sin in order to protect “via limited atonement Jesus died for this half but not this half”, well then you have rank heresy in which both the doctrine of original sin and Christ’s atonement is bifurcated. If they say Jesus did die for original sin which is ubiquitously to all men via Adam (which is crystal clear in Scripture), then limited atonement goes out the window. Or you are stuck with some mongrel doctrine in which Christ died for original sin but not necessarily a particular persons sin acts. Which is really a return to Rome, or rather via Calvin never having actually left Rome.


Anonymous said...

There’s also a theoretical disconnect in the Reformed doctrine. The reformed always like to pretend that God’s glory is best shown when He can ONLY select to save some or “could have” chosen to save none. And there’s a certain ring of truth to it, He would have been perfectly just to not save any of us. To the Arminian “but that (limited atonement or no atonement) is not fair”, the Calvinist giggles and replies, “Do you want God to REALLY be fair to you?” And so they giggle at their smack down answer to the Arminian.

Yet there’s an equal and opposing corollary that they hate, that is no less theoretically possible. In fact it is closer in theory to the very stumbling block of the Cross. It is also true that God could have displayed His glory in a universal salvation. How does the Calvinist like those apples. Would he reply in kind to that as the Arminian did to him, “but that (pure universalism) is not fair”? The reply might be, “What do you mean Mr. Calvinist, did you not realize that grace is free or do you just pretend it is then doctrinally charge for it in the other portions of your doctrine and now we unearth the reality, your synergism is not one wit different than the Arminians, its just not called “synergism” but goes under the fa├žade name of “monergism””.

Only Luther was the true monergist, that’s why Christ has to come allllllllll the way down to us in the Word and Sacraments, sans our faith’s reaching up to grasp it. When Luther meant monergism, he meant monergism, not a pretense of the name which is really hidden synergism.


Steve Martin said...

Nice one, Larry!