100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 5 pages.
Enn’s analyses on “Reformation Soteriology” is a quick and easy breakdown on the hot topic issues of atonement, faith, and works. Calvinism on the topic of atonement states, “Christ’s death was a particular atonement-He died only for the elect” (Enns, 2014, 11182). While I can agree with the statement in some ways in other ways I find myself torn. I am always on the fence with Calvin, I normally don’t fully agree or disagree with him. I can agree that Christ’s death was a particular atonement and that it would be for the elect that would choose Him, however, the statement of “only for the elect” I struggle with. Christ’s death was for all, even those that would not choose Him. Since God is all knowing, though, he would know that the elect would accept Him and I can understand the position that Calvin is taking on this matter. The “Armenian view is not a strict equivalent for sin nor a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty” (Enns, 2014, 11200). “The death of Christ was a sacrifice, a sacrifice was not payment of the debt, nor was it satisfaction of justice for sin” (Enns, 2014, 11195). This view stretches the concept of atonement in some cases, I will agree that Christ’s death is not a “satisfaction of justice for sin,” however, arguments can bemade for Christ’s death as a payment of sin debt. Calvin on the issue of faith and works supported “if election were dependent on man’s faith and good works, grace would not be free, and in fact would cease to be grace” (Enns, 2014, 11219). This is one of Calvin’s statements that I completely agree with. Election cannot be based on man’s good works, or none would be deserving of election. Grace would then come as a cost and would not be free, therefore, grace as we know it would in fact cease to be free grace. The Armenian view states “God elects to salvation those whom He knows willbelieve in Christ” (Enns, 2014, 11231). I do support this view as well and believe that Christ died for all people, but knows which people would choose to believe in Him. The Armenian view supports “man as incapable of responding to God because of sin, God dispenses prevenient grace to all people, which enables them freely to choose to believe in Christ or reject Christ” (Enns, 2014, 11232). This view seems to make the most sense, man must choose God, however, God may know which man will choose Him. This begins a lengthy debate on the issue of predestination. Works alone will not save man and man must respond to God. The issue between the two is “God chooses man” vs. “Man chooses God”.