Why I Call Him Savior by Everyday Mommy

If I were to describe this woman with one word it would be: Generous. Jules at Everyday Mommy is a generous woman who happens to also love homeschool, being in the kitchen, and cholula sauce. I am grateful for women like her, that despite the distance is willing to help, give and share her talents with others.

Thank you, Jules for being in the kitchen today. I am grateful for your life.

Why I Call Him Savior

My journey into the Doctrines of Grace began about twenty years ago when I, as a single gal with my evenings free, agreed to join an inductive Bible study class. Over the next couple of years studying of the Word of God lead me away from a Word of Faith church and on the road toward Reformed doctrine. There were some pot holes along the way, mind you. I struggled to right my beliefs and bring them in line with the Word of God alone, and one major sticking point was the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

If you’re at all like me, you’ve wrestled with this most debated of the letters of the TULIP, and maybe you’ve come away more confused than cognizant of why Calvinists proclaim that Christ’s finished work on the cross is limited. Lots of folks define themselves as four-point Calvinists and they do so over the “L”. So, what does this doctrine really mean?

You may have heard arguments such as, “How can she put the words ‘limited’ and ‘atonement’ together in a sentence, much less right beside each other!” And, “There’s nothing limited about the atonement. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe!” And, to that I would say, “My point exactly.”

Limited Atonement can be a confusing term, and it often takes a bad rap. The phrase itself rubs folks the wrong way and our knee-jerk reaction may be that the term somehow devalues Christ’s death on the cross. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine and it may be due, in part, to the title itself. Some theologians prefer alternate terms such as Particular Redemption, Definite Redemption, Actual Atonement or Intentional Atonement.

In essence, understanding Limited Atonement boils down to a simple question:

Did Christ atone for the sins of all human beings who were ever conceived? -or- Did Christ atone only for the elect?

Within Christianity there are two central views of salvation; Monergism and Synergism. Monergism is defined as the doctrine that the Holy Spirit acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. Synergism is defined as the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration. Our view of Limited Atonement will reveal whether or not we embrace Monergism or Synergism.

The Westminster Confession defines the doctrine of Limited Atonement this way: “Chapter III-VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”

Now, I’m no student of 17th Century English, but let me see if I can put that in a nutshell: God has chosen some for salvation, He has chosen the means of salvation, and His redemption applies only to the one’s He has chosen.

In his definitive book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Dr. Lorraine Boettner asks the pivotal question for us, “The question which we are to discuss under the subject of “Limited Atonement” is, “Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Him by the Father?”

Did Christ’s death merely make salvation possible? Did He simply set the stage and leave it up to the fickle will of fallen man to finish things up? Did He prepare the banquet and then hope against hope that the sworn enemies God would choose to come? Or, did Christ’s death actually pay the penalty of His people in full? Did He do exactly what He set out to do and save His own? (Revelation 5:9) Do we call Him Savior because He truly saved those whom God the Father had predestined (Ephesians 1:4) from the foundation of world? (John 10:15)

I call Him Savior, because He saved me. I was not ill and merely needed medicine. I was not faint and merely needed reviving. I was not just out of reach and merely needed aid. It was not a gift I merely needed to receive. I was dead in my sins. No lifeline tossed toward me would change my heart, as I would not have reached out to grasp it. Had it not been for my Lord who came to accomplish the will of the Father, dragging me against my will from my sin, I would yet be delighting in it today.

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

**************************

Jules is hosting a giveaway today for all who have joined us in the kitchen, the book is:

Monergism Books

 To enter the drawing you must leave a comment here, on this post. The winner will be announced in a week, next Tuesday April 26.

 ****************************** 

Have you signed in for Trisha's great giveaway (perfect for moms with little ones!)?

If you haven't go over there., read her post and leave a comment to enter the drawing. (click here) 

Don't forget to check the resources' page and sign in for the giveaway at the end of the month. (Including a Systematic Theology)

Are you just tuning in? Read what this series is all about here.

Consider sharing the goodness...

grab a button or join us on facebook.