If one views the atonement as a penal substitution, and believes that God has perfect foreknowledge, then I think something interesting follows. What follows is, I believe, the Reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption (or "Limited Atonement"). Here's why: If God, from eternity past, foresaw who would respond to the gospel, and who wouldn't, why would He provide propitiation for those whom He knew would reject Him? Keep in mind, by the way, that Limited Atonement defined in the classical Reformed sense means that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all, but intended for the elect only. Another more theologically proper way to say it is that the atonement was infinite in expiation (removing God's wrath), and finite in propitiation (reconcilation).
So again, wouldn't it make sense given God's perfect foreknowledge, that even if man were free to accept or reject the gospel, that He would only provide a perfect and covenantal sacrifice for those whom He knew would choose Him? The sacrifice, God would foresee, would never find application in the lives of those who rejected the gospel, so why pay for them (this God would know via His middle knowledge, if you're a Molinist)? One may object that this line of thinking only works if God is in time, which (the objector will probably believe), God is not. But this is not so. God, in His "Eternal Now" (as C.S. Lewis put it), would still have perfect knowledge of the free actions of His creatures, and it would still be pointless for God to intend to make a propitiation for those whom He perfectly, and eternally, knows will reject Him.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment