Question
I was looking through some friends blogs and found some interesting thoughts. One caused me to want to ask a question of my limited audience.
Doughman has a post about the 5 points of Calvinism aka tulip. the 'l' in tulip stands for limited atonement. Now some out there I'm sure find limited atonement disturbing. It is hard to understand. I, for one, believe the limited atonement view based on what Scripture teaches on the subject. I am not going to list all the verses here because that is not my question. The problem I have is with the few verses which imply an unlimited view to the work of Christ. Here is my question:
In what way is the atonement UN-limited?
Doughman has a post about the 5 points of Calvinism aka tulip. the 'l' in tulip stands for limited atonement. Now some out there I'm sure find limited atonement disturbing. It is hard to understand. I, for one, believe the limited atonement view based on what Scripture teaches on the subject. I am not going to list all the verses here because that is not my question. The problem I have is with the few verses which imply an unlimited view to the work of Christ. Here is my question:
In what way is the atonement UN-limited?
posted by RJ-77 at 7:24 AM
12 Comments:
Good question. In my humble opinion, it is unlimited in its scope, meaning that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for every one. He is the Savior of the world and He is the satisfaction for not only our sins, but for the whole world. In this case, it is unlimited.
Rhett... are you trying to get us to write your term paper for graduation? If so nice try :-)
I think the question of particular atonement that is thrown around today, namely "Who did Christ die for?" is the wrong question. The question that particular redemption seeks to answer for the Calvinist is as R.C. Sproul put it, "What was God's original purpose or intent in sending His Son into the world? Was His plan to make redemption possible or certian?" Or as I might state it, what value did Christ's atonement have? Is it sufficient to save? Or only potentially able to save if we have faith?
If God is sovereign over all things, and His preordained plan is to save people from every tongue and tribe and nation, then Christ's death must be certain to those God has elected. Yet the value of the atonement is unlimited.
To JCrew and jeremy -
The problem I have with both of your answers is that the only way Christ's death is unlimted is in its own worth. And while that does answer my question because it was so broad I'm thinking more specific.
How is the atonement unlimited toward man?
I'm not sure that it is, except for the scope of it. Maybe it has to do with the common grace experienced by all men. What are your thoughts?
Maybe the best way for me to say this is that the atonement is unlimited in its availability. By that I mean what John 3:16 means when it says "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
There is a openness to the Gospel in that it is to be proclaimed to all humanity (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). And therefore as the Good News is declared to all men, so the atoning work of Christ is available to them.
This is why unbelief is such a serious sin. When someone rejects the Gospel they are not merely rejecting words, they are rejecting the atonement. They are saying "Christ's death to satisfy the Father and make payment for all of my sin is not for me."
So the atonement is to be proclaimed in the Gospel to all people. In that way it is unlimited.
Again I would have to disagree Jerums. There is some way, it would seem to me, that the atonement is unlimited, effectually, for all men. Is that possible?
Scott,
I agree with your assessment of 1 John 2:2. I hate it when a limited atonement proponent tries to make that verse limited. However, the whole world cannot have all their sins paid for by Christ and then be sent to hell. So the atonement does not have an eternal effect for unredeemed sinners. Would you agree?
Here's the problem Rhett. If the atonement is unlimited effectually, then why are people condemned to Hell? If it is because the "payment has not been withdrawn" you place the action of salvation on man's faith, and not on Christ's substitutionary atonement.
If you understand the 2 Peter 2:1 text with the term bought as referring to salvation, then you must ask if the doctrine of eternal security is really valid. If God bought them in a salvation sense, then how did he loose them again so that they are condemned to hell? Theologically then the "bought" must refer to something other than salvation.
Jerums,
The Peter passage is a little difficult to discern. Peter could be refering to the fact that these are people in the church claiming salvation therefore they are denying the Lord of the church, who in that sense bought them.
As I stated before I believe in limited atonement, not just because it makes sense but because it is supported by Scripture (many more verses than the unlimited view, actually about a dozen or more).
I will now 'spill the beans' on what I was thinking. I wanted to see if anybody else would come up with the same thought without being prompted.
In John class with Canham, the idea was discussed that perhaps the atonement is universal in the area of God delaying his wrath for sinners. To state it another way, how does God, justly, delay not punishing sinners immediately? Could the answer be the work of Christ on the cross is the only way God shows mercy to allow sinners to live?
I hope I have clearly stated the point. If not I'm sure you guys will let me know. But if I did what do you think about that?
If you focus on the atonement as being the reason God delay's his wrath on sinners then I ask the question why didn't he stomp everyone out immediately who were born before Christ's death. The OT sacrificial system was not in anyway an atonement for sin (Romans 3:25)
I will however state that it is a measure of God's grace that he does not judge sinners immediately right now. I think it would be a little speculative to say that is the universal nature of the atonement. The atonement, in my view, deals with redemption, not with God's forebearance.
I have been pondering this question for a few days. I didn't want to jump in because this question was getting a little too deep for me, but I decided to give it a try. I don't consider myself a bible scholar. I've only taken a few grad courses at Moody and so i don't have great quotes or scripture references to give right now. I'd have to go look those up!
Answer: Can't it be both (limited and unlimited)? Isn't this a little like the predestination vs. free will question?...Do we really chose? Would our choice matter because we were predestined? I think that we are thinking with our limited/finite minds. In regards to salvation, we are both predestined and we chose (after the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our lives).
Regarding atonment, Jesus Christ came that ALL may have life. God desires everyone to come to a saving knowledge of Him. Now not everyone choses the gift of salvation and not everyone is saved, but I believe that His sacrifice is unlimited and is available to anyone who believes.
As far as delaying His response to sinners in the world, I would also have to agree with Jeremy that it has more to do with grace then atonement. God has His own time table and has a reason for delaying His punishment of the wicked. God is just and He will serve His punishment in His time, not ours.
Scott,
I perused the site you gave. Most of the verses he uses concern Christ being the 'savior' of the whole world. I am referring to the verses that deal directly with the atonement. In other words if the verse can answer, directly, for whom did Christ die? We all know that Christ's saving work involved his death, but that is one step removed from answering the question directly.
Post a Comment
<< Home