Efficient Atonement
What? You thought it was "TULIP", didn't you? This is where I fess up to not being a true "Calvinist" (whatever that means). No, I don't agree with Limited Atonement. Oh sure, I agree that the natural result necessarily limits the atonement - but I firmly believe that Christ died for all, and yet some will reject that gift. In other words, it is my view that His work on the cross was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect. This is a fairly common position, but there are people I have the utmost respect for that hold the opposite view. It is not a subject, in my view, to be dogmatic about.
So my position is, in essence, that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just for the sins of the elect. I am still looking for a good write-up on this subject, but in the interim will offer Scripture that I believe defends that Christ died for all men, even if all were not meant to be saved:
Luk 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 3:14-18 (14) "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; (15) so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. (16) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (17) "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (18) "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 4:42 and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world."
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
2Co 5:14-18 (14) For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; (15) and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (16) Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. (17) Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (18) Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
1Ti 2:3-6 (3) This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (5) For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
1Ti 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
Tit 2:11-12 (11) For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, (12) instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
Heb 2:9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
1Jo 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
10 Comments:
You said: "I am still looking for a good write-up on this subject." Does
Birds of the Air: Tiptoe through TULIP - L>this help?
The problem with Unlimited Atonement is that it begs the question ... the question I have yet to have answered by its proponents. If all sin for all mankind is atoned for, on what basis can God judge sin?
I do need to point out, however, that "Limited Atonement" is not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Was Jesus intending to save all, or was He intending to save some?
Good luck with those. =)
Stan:
I actually like your post on this topic. A person that I have learned much from over the past year and a half has similar views. Frankly, it's a doctrine that I struggle with - going back and forth to some extent, looking for compromise - and I always land back on the "U", thus misspelling the word TULIP :)
I know you're going to shake your head at this, but I have no problem with God judging sin despite all sin being atoned for. It goes back to His sovereignty - and I don't question it. I reject the so-called "banker" argument, because He's, well, not a banker.
I also disagree with the "intent" argument. I can't take credit for this, so I won't: Ryrie says that the actual question should be "Did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made? Because some reject does not invalidate the provision or mean that the provision was not made for them. The death of Christ provided the payment for the sins of all people - those who accept that payment and those who do not. Refusal to accept does not limit the provision made. Providing and processing are not the same."
Some important points he makes:
1. Unlimited redemptionists are not universalists (I don't think you believe this)
2. All people are lost, including the elect
3. Anyone who is saved must believe
4. Some Scriptures do relate the Atonement particularly to the elect - but there are others that broaden it beyond the elect.
As for the traditional argument of "sins being paid for twice", he asks, "Did the Israelite who refused to apply the Passover blood to the door of his house have his sins paid for twice? When the Passover Lamb was killed, his sins were covered. But if he did not put the blood on the door, he died. Was this a second payment for his sins? Of course not. Death after failure to apply the blood was just retribution for not appropriating the sufficient sacrifice. The Atonement of Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, but the individual must appropriate that payment through faith. The world was reconciled to God (2Co 5:19), but those reconciled people need to be reconciled to God (2Co 5:20)."
My apologies for the Ryrie "study session." It's in my Theology textbook and is the best "write-up" I have.
I've read somewhere that the case for Limited Atonement is convincing, but the case for Unlimited Atonement is overwhelming - that sums it up well for me. I agree with the "Bottom line" in your post: "This doctrine isn't critical. It is rational and reasonable, but it isn't essential for salvation or for the function of any of the surrounding doctrines."
I feel that way also about "Unlimited Atonement."
Scott,
Just to see if I understand ...
1) "I have no problem with God judging sin despite all sin being atoned for. It goes back to His sovereignty."
Your view is "God is certainly free to judge sins twice, to have them all paid for and then charge us with them again if He so chooses because He's sovereign." Is that right?
2) "I also disagree with the 'intent' argument."
Your view is that Christ's intent on the Cross was to make salvation possible, but not to actually accomplish anything. (I mean, He accomplished the potential salvation of everyone; He wasn't at all aiming at the actual salvation of anyone.) Is that right?
I know of very, very few people who actually believe in Unlimited Atonement without actually believing in Universalism. The two are logically unavoidable, unless you simply say "God can do as He pleases" and avoid logic. Of course, as you said, most who deny Limited Atonement are not Universalists. I don't mean that at all. It's simply the only logical conclusion. =)
1. No, I don't think He's "judging sins twice". But I certainly wouldn't question His sovereignty to do so if he so chose. I'm probably not explaining my view very well - but I'm certain that you've read all of the arguments enough to know what I'm trying to say :)
2. a) I would say those things are simultaneous or inclusive - the work of an infinite God that can't always be put into a neat little box; and b) I think your statement here is true only when you look at it from the perspective of one who holds to Limited Atonement. For that person Universalism might be the only logical conclusion - but we both know that there are plenty of people, idiots like me and esteemed scholars, who believe in Unlimited Atonement and are most definitely not Universalists (well, besides William Barclay)
And tnis is important Stan: My inability to properly communicate this position or defend it doesn't make it wrong :)
OK - I have to give a little more ground here.
I believe that Christ died for all people potentially, but that He paid only for the sins of the Elect.
That seems to me to be legitimate compromise given the Scripture that seems to contradict (but we know it doesn't).
Scott,
Ah, now that's a horse of a different color, so to speak. When you said, "I believe that Christ died for all people potentially, but that He paid only for the sins of the Elect", you transitioned from "the logical necessity of Universalism" to the mainstream of "Unlimited Atonement". Since He only paid for the sins of the elect and only potentially paid for the sins of all people, then Universal Salvation is not a logical necessity.
Of course, now you're talking about an atonement that is potentially unlimited but actually limited, aren't you? =)
Yes, I see it as a blend between two extreme positions that seem to ignore Scripture from the opposing sides.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most who hold to Limited Atonement would say that Christ died only for the elect.
Like most of these titles, I believe the terms "Limited" and "Unlimited" are unfortunate. In fact, after I post on Perseverance of the Saints I plan to post on these titles - and I plan to include alternate titles that may better describe the doctrines themselves (but unfortunately do not spell out the name of any flower).
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most who hold to Limited Atonement would say that Christ died only for the elect."
No, you're not wrong ... but they are. The intent is not "Christ died only for the elect." The intent is "What did Christ actually accomplish?" When He said, "It is finished", what did He mean was finished? The idea behind "Limited Atonement" is that Christ didn't accomplish the Atonement of all sin for all mankind (necessitating Universalism), but that He actually did accomplish the atonement for the sin of the elect.
This is most often a case of talking past each other. One side objects to the term, "Limited Atonement". The other side reacts to the objection. The "battle" rages. All the while, both sides are actually in agreement that Christ paid for the sin of the elect and that those who do not come to Christ still bear their own sin. Ah, yes, another case of two people separated by a common language. =)
So is there a term that describes this "middle ground" position? I've never seen one.
Of course, I suppose if you believe that Christ potentially died for all but paid only for the sins of the Elect, then (as you've said before) you're really explaining a "limited atonement." But unfortunately, as usual, it puts one in a box with people who don't share your definition of that term.
I've rarely found myself in a box with people who share my understanding of things. LOL
My only redeeming hope is that simply because a lot of people don't agree with me doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.
Post a Comment