Supplementary Lecture Material, August 23

This is a page where I can broaden the context of a discussion and offer motivated students advanced material.

TIP: Block and copy the text of the material below and paste it into a word processor; then, print the material before coming to class.

Note: The availability of this material to the student allows more time for discussion during the class period. Review the material before coming to class each Monday.

ATONEMENT AND THE PLAN OF SALVATION

Q. How many "ways of salvation" are there within Christendom?
A. If substitutionary atonement is a work originating from God, then what other options are there for those who are in need of deliverance from their sins? Warfield proposes only four:
1. Autosoterism - people save themselves;
2. Sacerdotalism - the view that grace is revealed for salvation through certain religious rites associated with a secondary priesthood;
3. Universalism - all people will eventually be saved. (Some, for example, appeal to Romans 5:18 as a proof text.)
4. Theosoterism - God saves people by initiating grace through the substitutionary atonement of His Son with its application by the Holy Spirit to the ones for whom He died.

ATONEMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
Q. Is the method of salvation in the OT reconcilable with the teaching in the NT on salvation?
A. The law of Moses substantiated the fact that God and man are hopelessly estranged by man's sin, and there is no way back from the human side; but God provides the way. In the Old Testament atonement is usually said to be obtained by the blood sacrifices, but it must never be forgotten that God says of atoning blood, "I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls" (Leviticus. 17:11). Atonement is secured, not by any value inherent in the sacrificial victim, but because sacrifice is the divinely appointed way of securing atonement. The sacrifices point to certain truths concerning atonement. Thus the victim must always be unblemished, which indicates the necessity for perfection. The victims cost something, for atonement is not cheap; and sin is never to be taken lightly. The death of the victim was the important thing. This is brought out partly in the allusions to blood, partly in the general character of the rite itself, and partly in other references to atonement. There are several allusions to atonement that point to death as the way. Besides the ritual prescribed for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), in another instance Exodus 32:30-32 Moses seeks to make an atonement for the sin of the people; and he does so by asking God to blot him out of the book which He has written. In another striking case, Phinehas made an atonement by slaying certain transgressors (Numbers 25: 6-8, 13). It is clear that in the Old Testament it was recognized that death was the penalty for sin (Ezekiel 1:20), but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner. So clear is the connection that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews can sum it up by saying "Without shedding of blood is no remission of sins" (Hebrews 9:22). Notice the powerful ritual connected with the Day of Atonement, when annual atonement was made for the sins of the people, the holiest day in the Hebrew calendar: (from Leviticus chapter 16)
1. The priest (Aaron in the first instance) washed, dressed and prepared himself;
2. A bull was sacrificed as a sin offering for the priest;
3. He entered the Most Holy Place and sprinkled the mercy seat on the lid of the ark of the covenant with the blood;
4. To two goats were imparted the sins of the nation of Israel (one chosen by lot as the scapegoat, the other became a sin offering);
5. The sin offering goat was sacrificed;
6. He entered the Most Holy place again, this time with the goat blood for the nation's sin offering;
7. He then departs the tabernacle to sprinkle the goat's blood outside the tent of meeting on the bronze altar in the main court yard;
8. He then confessed the sins of the nation, laid his hands on the scapegoat's head (Azalel);
9. He sent the scapegoat away into the wilderness;
10. The high priest washed himself and changed back into his priestly vestments;
11. Finally, he offered burnt offerings first for himself, then for the people of Israel.
This ritual is thoroughly "substitutionary" in import and reflects the blood covenant ritual long in practice among Semitic peoples. (H. Clay Trumbull insists that God's people did not derive the blood atonement idea from pagans; rather, the reverse is true!)

MAJOR THEORIES OF THE ATONEMENT
Q. What does historical theology teach us about various theories of the doctrine of atonement?
A. Here are some major theories:

1. "Christus Victor" - While viable as a secondary result of the atonement, resulting in deliverance for true believers from Satan's power, this theory must not me the primary deposit of Christ's substitutionary work. Warfield reminds us that this theory conceives the work of Christ as terminating upon Satan, so affecting him as to secure the release of the souls held in bondage by him. These theories, which have been described as emphasizing the "triumphant" aspect of Christ's work had very considerable vogue in the patristic age (e.g., Ireraeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, down to and including John of Damascus, Jerome, Augustine, Leo the Great, and even so late as Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153). As a primary theory, it passed out of view only gradually as the doctrine of "satisfaction" became more widely known. Not only does the thought of a Bernard still run in this channel, but even Luther utilized the conception. The idea runs through many forms, speaking in some of them of buying off Satan, in some of overcoming the devil, in some even of outwitting the evil one (so, e.g., Origen); but it would be unfair to suppose that such theories represent in any of their forms the whole thought as to the work of Christ of those who made use of them, or were considered by them a scientific statement of the work of Christ. They rather embody only their author's profound sense of the bondage in which men are held to sin and death, and vividly set forth the rescue they conceive Christ has wrought for us in overcoming him who has the power of death.

2. Moral Influence View - Put forth by Peter Abelard (d. 1142). This view of the atonement denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, and holds that His death was designed primarily to impress men with a sense of God's love and thus soften their hearts and lead them to repentance. Loraine Boettner believes that this is the most widely held and the most influential of the erroneous theories of the atonement. According to this view the crucifixion was a dramatic exhibition of suffering intended to produce a moral impression in awe-stricken spectators. It represents Christ as suffering for us as a loving father or mother suffers for an ungrateful son or a wayward daughter and with the purpose of moving us as a loving father or mother suffers for an ungrateful or a wayward daughter and with the purpose of moving us so that we will turn and repent. Warfield noted how this theory transfers the atoning fact from the work of Christ to the response of the human soul to the influences or appeals proceeding from the work of Christ. The work of Christ takes immediate effect not from God but from man, leading a person to a state of mind and heart which will be acceptable to God. At its highest level, this will mean that the work of Christ is directed to leading man to repentance and faith, which repentance and faith secure God's favor, an effect which can be attributed to Christ's work only "mediately," that is, through the medium of the repentance and faith it produces in man. As some say, "It is faith and repentance which change the face of God." This approach is very subtle. It can make faith generated ostensibly from human emotions and sympathy the starting point for securing God's favor, rather than a faith generated by the work of Christ and mediated by the Holy Spirit to sinners who are spiritually dead in their trespasses and sins and who are incapable of perceiving by supernatural faith the great offense to God that warranted His initiative through His Son's vicarious sacrifice. In some ways it is similar to the "example theory" below, but the moral influence theory does emphasize more the completed work of Christ on the cross.

3. Governmental Theory - Also known as the Rectoral [meaning "headship"] View, Dutch theologian Hugo Grotius (d. 1645) proposed this atonement theory. He argued that our Lord Jesus Christ did not bear upon Himself our punishment vicariously but served merely as our "penal example," whereby, according to Leon Morris, the law was honored while sinners were pardoned. It's called the governmental theory of the atonement because, in Grotius' mind, God is ruler or head of the government who passed a law claiming "The Soul that sins must die." Because God is also a God of love, He does not want sinners to die, so He "relaxed" His judgmental rule and accepted the death of Christ His Son instead. God could have simply forgiven sinners had He wanted to, but that would not have been of any real value to all of society. The atonement was an example to the depths to which God would go in order to restore the moral government of the cosmos.

4. Mystical Theory - Several forms of this argument look upon humans as a mass or unit rather than as individuals. The seeds of death and corruption which were introduced into the race through Adam's sin are overcome by the principle of life and immortality that Jesus introduced through His Incarnation. Salvation, then, comes indirectly through Jesus sinless life and divine nature diffused representatively during His earthly life. It is obvious what this does to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.

5. Example Theory - By following Jesus example of moral rectitude, one may be saved. With this theory, Jesus death on the cross meets two basic human needs: 1. Jesus death is an example to us of God's perfect love which we must emulate if we are to receive salvation; 2. Jesus' death inspires us to follow Him in obedience and be saved. Humans have the natural ability to respond to Jesus supreme example and be saved. Sixteenth century theologians, Faustus and Laelius Socinus, put forth this view which was adopted by the Unitarians. This Socinian view is upheld by the Racovian Catechism. These anti-supernaturalists rejected the idea of a vicarious satisfaction by Christ. 1 Peter 2:21ff. is cited: "For hereunto truly were you called; for Christ also suffered for us leaving us an example that you should follow His steps . . . that we should be delivered from sin and should live in righteousness." Millard Erickson capsulized this view: "[The] atonement is only a metaphorical concept. All that is necessary for us to be restored to the intended relationship with God is personal adoption of both the teachings of Jesus and the example He set in life and especially in death" (Introducing Christian Doctrine, p. 242).

6. The Ransom Theory - First developed by Origen of Alexandria, this view centers on the cosmic battle between God and Satan. See. Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. Here Jesus said that He "came to be a ransom for many." The age-old question has been: "To whom was the ransom paid? Origen insisted that the ransom was paid to Satan, who was totally surprised by Jesus resurrection, when he lost his hold not only on true believers but also Jesus. Romans 6:5 and Galatians 3:13 serve as a corrective to Origen's assumption. There we are told that Jesus came to deliver us from the curse of the law. This points us to the final view of Satisfaction.

7. The Doctrine of Satisfaction/Penal Substitution - The Biblical doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ finds full recognition in no other construction than that of the established church-doctrine of satisfaction. According to it, our Lord's redeeming work is at its core a true and perfect sacrifice offered to God, of intrinsic value ample for the expiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfect righteousness offered to God in fulfilment of the demands of his law; both the one and the other being offered in behalf of his people, and, on being accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by this satisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt as breakers of the law, and from the burden of the law as a condition of life; and this by a work of such kind and performed in such a manner, as to carry home to the hearts of men a profound sense of the righteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of his love; so that, by this one and indivisible work, both God is reconciled to us, and we, under the quickening influence of the Spirit bought for us by it, are reconciled to God, so making peace-external peace between an angry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of the human conscience to the restored smile of God. Erickson asserts: "Christ died to satisfy a principle in the very nature of the Father." That principle is the justice and righteousness of God the Father. This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fulness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the church, Greek, Latin, and Protestant and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the church for the last nine hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo? (Why God Human?), in 1098; but reached its complete development only at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of the, seventeenth century. See for example Turretin, The Atonement of Christ, and John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (1650). See also A. A. Hodge, The Atonement and George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
Q. What are two predominate views on the extent of Christ's atonement.
A. There are two: unlimited and limited.
UNLIMITED ATONEMENT JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF ALL MEN.
DEFINITE REDEMPTION -- JESUS CHRIST DIED FOR GOD'S ELECT.
Our Lord said: "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me; just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." (John 10:14,15)
J. I. Packer explains definite redemption (It is sometimes called "particular redemption," "effective atonement," and "limited atonement.") as an historic Christian doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice or the genuineness of God's "whoever will" invitation to all who hear the gospel (Revelation 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.
The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ's death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ's death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism). Scripture must be the guide in choosing between these possibilities.
Scripture speaks of God as having chosen for salvation a great number of our fallen race and having sent Christ into the world to save them (John 6:37-40; 10:27-29; 11:51-52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups or persons, with the clear implication that his death secured their salvation (John 10:15-18, 27-29; Rom. 5:8-10; 8:32; Gal. 2:20, 3:13-14; 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; 5:910). Facing his passion, he prayed only for those the Father had given him, not for the "world" (i.e., the rest of mankind, John 17:9, 20). Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only one of the three views that harmonizes with this data.
There is no inconsistency or incoherence in the teaching of the New Testament about, on the one hand, the offer of Christ in the gospel, which Christians are told to make known everywhere, and, on the other hand, the fact that Christ achieved a totally efficacious redemption for God's elect on the cross. It is a certain truth that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy (John 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Rom. 1:16; 10:8-13). The elect hear Christ's offer, and through hearing it are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Both the invitation and the effectual calling flow from Christ's sin-bearing death. Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; John 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault. Those who receive Christ learn to thank him for the cross as the centerpiece of God's plan of sovereign saving grace.

SUBSTITUTION AND IMPUTATION

Q. What do Baptist confessions say about Christ's work?
A. CHRIST'S WORK WAS PERFECT IN EVERY RESPECT, PERFECT IN EVERY ASPECT: THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRIST'S SATISFACTION OF JUSTICE/ATONEMENT
The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) on the Work of Christ:
"Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ [He]... honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and through His death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, partaking of the nature of God and of man, and in whose and in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord."
The Second London Confession of Faith (1689) on the Work of Christ:
4. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; so that He might discharge [this office] He was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered. [He was] made Sin and a Curse for us: enduring most grievous sorrows in his Soul, and most painful sufferings in his body, [He] was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the self-same body in which he suffered; with which He also ascended into heaven: and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession. And shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.
5. The Lord Jesus by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the Justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto Him.
6. Although the price of Redemption was not actually paid by Christ, till after His Incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the Elect in all ages successively, from the beginning of the World, in and by those Promises, Types, and Sacrifices, wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the Seed of the Woman, which should bruise the Serpents head. And the Lamb slain from the foundation of the World is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.
7. Christ in the work of Mediation acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to it self; yet by reason of the Unity of the Person, that which is proper to one nature, is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the Person denominated by the other nature.
8. To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He does certainly, and effectually apply, and communicate the same; making intercession for them, uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe, and obey -- governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his Almighty power, and wisdom, in such manner, and ways as are most consonant to His wonderful, and unsearchable dispensation. And all [this is] of free and absolute Grace, without any condition foreseen in them, to procure it.
9. This office of Mediator between God and man, is proper only to Christ, who is the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church of God; and may not be either in whole, or any part thereof transferred from Him to any other.
10. This number and order of Offices is necessary, for in respect of our ignorance, we stand in need of His prophetical Office; and in respect of our alienation from God, and imperfection of the best of our services, we need his Priestly office, to reconcile us, and present us acceptable unto God. And in respect of our averseness, and utter inability to return to Cod, and for our rescue, and security from our spiritual adversaries, we need his Kingly office, to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us to his Heavenly Kingdom.
DEFINITIONS
The word "atonement" is one of the few theological terms which derive basically from Anglo-Saxon. It means literally "at-one-ment," or "a making at one" and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into restored fellowship with God. The word occurs in the Old Testament as kaphar, meaning "to atone, cover, forgive" and it is found once in the New Testament as katallage which is better translated "reconciliation." Its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation with God. Benjamin B. Warfield insisted that it is better to use the term "satisfaction," to designate, according to its nature, the work of Christ in saving sinners, by "atonement." Warfield insists that the term "atonement" is the more usual designation at present and is somewhat unfortunate. "Satisfaction" is at once the more comprehensive, the more expressive, the less ambiguous, and the more exact term. The word "atonement" occurs only once in the English New Testament and on this occasion in some translations it bears its archaic sense of "reconciliation," and as such translates the Greek term katallage. In the English Old Testament, however, it is found quite often as the stated rendering of the Hebrew terms kipper, kippurim (again from the root kaphar, "to cover, to forgive, to expiate, to atone for," hence Yom Kippur, "Day of Atonement") in the sense of "expiation," and "propitiation." It is in this latter sense that it has become current, and has been applied to the work of Christ, which it accordingly describes as, in its essential nature, an expiatory offering, propitiating an offended deity and reconciling Him with man. It does no injustice to the New Testament representation to characterized the work of Christ in this manner.
THE NEED FOR ATONEMENT
Leon Morris noted that the need for atonement is brought about by three things:
1. The universality of sin,
2. The seriousness of sin, and
3. People's inability to deal with sin.
The first point is asserted by the following representative passages: "There is no man that does not sin" (1 Kings 8:46); "There is none that does good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3); "There is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and does not sin" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Jesus told the rich young ruler: "There is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark. 10: 18), and Paul writes, "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
The seriousness of sin is seen in passages which show God's aversion to it. Habakkuk prayed: You [Lord] are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon iniquity" (Habakkuk 1: 13). Sin separates men and women from God (Isaiah 59:2; Proverbs 15:29). Jesus said of one sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that it will never be forgiven, either in this life or in the age to come (Mark 2:29), and of Judas Iscariot He said: "Good were it for that man if he had never been born" (Mark 14:2 1). Before being saved we are all "alienated and enemies in (our) mind by wicked deeds" (Colossians 1:21). Paul (if you accept his authorship of Hebrews) warns that there awaits the unrepentant sinner only "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:27). In a word, a person cannot deal with the situation alone.
One is not able to keep one's sin hidden well from others and certainly not from God (Numbers 32:23), and one cannot cleanse oneself of it (Proverbs 20:9). No deeds of law will ever enable someone to stand before God justified (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16). One must depend on oneself, then one will never be saved. Perhaps the most important evidence of this is the very fact of the atonement. If the Son of God came to earth to save men, then men were sinners and their plight serious indeed.

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION AND CHRIST'S SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT
Aurelius Augustine (d. 430) and the theologians following him upheld a cardinal tenet of theology, the three greats acts of imputation. Imputation may be understood as the attribution or transfer of one person's sin or righteousness to another. The development of this doctrine is important because it serves a great theological hinge on which the doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement swings. The three-fold doctrine consists of (1) the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, (2) the imputation of the sins of the Father's people to His Son, our Redeemer, and (3) the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people whom He purchased as their sin substitute. This tripartite principle may be seen clearly in Romans 5:12-21 and in 2 Corinthians 5:20c-21, "Be reconciled to God! For He (the Father) made Him (our Lord Jesus the Messiah) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."

A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT: DEFINITE REDEMPTION
Of immediate concern is the answer to this question posed by Boettner: "Did the death of Christ have special reference to particular individuals who had been given to Him by the Father and who were therefore definitely foreknown as His people; or was it intended for the whole race alike, for every individual without distinction or exception?" In other words, "Was the death of Christ designed to render certain the salvation of particular individuals, or was it designed merely to render possible the salvation of all men?" W. R. Godfrey answers the issue in two distinct categories: General and particular Redemption.
1. General Redemption
Defenders of a universal atonement (historically known as General Baptists) appeal for scriptural support, for example, in John 3:16; Romans 5;18, and 1 John 2:12. They argue that their view is necessary to effective preaching so that each individual can be told, "Christ died for you." In 1610, just after Jacobus Arminius' death, Remonstrants who protested the Dutch reformed theology being taught in Holland at the time, and, following Arminius' lead, protested the tenets of the "doctrines of grace" (as they are now often called). The Remonstrant party opted for a universal atonement. They believed, according to D. N. Steele and C. C. Thomas, that "Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it."
Now, some say that since Christ died for everyone, all will therefore be saved without exception. This is "actual universalism," but there is another form known as "hypothetical universalism." R. C. Sproul defines it succinctly: "Christ died for all, but His death has no saving effect without an added faith and repentance not foreseen in Jesus' death. In other words, Christ died for the general purpose of making salvation possible, but the salvation of particular individuals was not included in Jesus' death."
2. Particular Redemption
Defenders of a limited atonement (historically known as Particular Baptists) appeal for support, for example, to Matthew 1:21; 20:28, and John 17:9. Texts that are apparently universal are explained as referring to "all sorts and all kinds of people in the world," rather than to every individual. They argue that this is consistent with the character of Christ's substitutionary atonement and with the harmony of the Trinity. In other words, if Christ truly bore all of the wrath of God for all sin as a substitute for the sinner, then the extent of the atonement and the effect of the atonement must be the same. If the Father has elected some sinners to eternal life and if the Holy Spirit applies the saving work of Christ only to the elect, then Christ, in harmony with the purpose of the Father and the Spirit, died on the cross in order to actually purchase the elect out of their slavery to sin.

The Statement That Popularly Represents "Calvinism":
John Calvin did not coin the popular buzz word "Calvinism," that causes some "to see red." One cannot find particular atonement treated explicitly in his Institutes of the Christian Religion"; rather, it may be implied there. A synod was convened from 1618-19 in Dort, Holland, whereby the Remonstrants' theology was repudiated. Among five other tenets, known as "The Five Points of Calvinism" was came this definitive statement on particular redemption or limited atonement: "Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation."