No, not the "P"! I mean, the last letter that potential Calvinists finally come to terms with. I'm talking about the infamous "L," which stands for Limited Atonement. I am accumulating an ever-growing list of friends who have learned to rejoice in man's radical fallenness, God's sovereign choice, the Spirit's effectual calling, and his preservation of his people. In other words, I know a lot of four-point Calvinists. What I was going to do was call this post "Limited Atonement for Dummies," but it seemed a little too clever for its own good. Also, I didn't want these newcomers to think I was calling them dummies.
What I wanted to do here was a series of drive-by arguments meant to provoke thought and not to exhaustively answer this subject in a drawn-out way.
Thought #1:
Limited Atonement is not about how valuable the blood of Jesus is. Rather, it is a statement about the Son's intent in coming and laying down his life "of my own accord." What was Jesus' intent, in other words? J.I. Packer defines limited atonement in this way: "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."
Thought #2:
If you believe that the Father elected only some, that the Spirit draws only some, then by denying Limited Atonement, you set the Son against the Father in his purpose, because you have the Father choosing some, the Spirit drawing some, and the Son atoning for all with the intention of saving all. This creates a Trinitarian dilemma which I would not want to find myself in. Rather, let us say that the Father chooses his elect, the Spirit draws the elect, and the Son removes the sin of the elect, giving them His own righteousness in their place. This is the single-minded purpose of God in salvation and brings him great glory.
Thought #3:
If Jesus really did atone for the sins of those in Hell, not only are we to accuse God of double jeopardy (punishing the same sin twice), but we have a situation where someone's sin has been removed. But then what sin, does the person suffer for in Hell? I have heard many argue that they are punished for their unbelief. However, John Owen famously argued that if Christ died for all of the sinner's sins, then He also must have died for their sin of unbelief. If, then, Owen argued, the sin of unbelief has been atoned for, they have no grounds for punishment in Hell. And if someone argues that all sins except for unbelief are atoned for, then it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement, but the person who is saying that Christ does not die for all of a person's sins.
Thought #4:
There are plenty of verses which teach that anyone who believes will be saved, but these do not contradict Limited Atonement. Likewise, there are many verses which praise Christ's dying for "the world." Each of these verses, on their own may individually be answered. D.A. Carson argues that "both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love." And so we do. We affirm that Christ died for the world, but we are careful to define what we mean by that, as we should all do anyway. (Incidentally, I recommend Carson's article, which fleshes out his meaning quite a bit.)
Thought #5:
There are many verses which teach Christ's particular intention in laying down his life. This includes Christ talking about intending to save "His sheep": John 10:11, 15; "His Church," Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; "His people," Matt. 1:21, and "the elect," Rom. 8:32-35. Furthermore, The Bible does speak of Christ's only coming to save some: "John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:13-14; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; Rev. 5:9-10. We also see Jesus' particular intention to only lay down his life for his sheep in the high priestly prayer in John 17:9: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given to me."* If Jesus was trying to save each and every person who ever lived or ever would live, then this would be a very curious prayer, indeed. As Packer puts it, "Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only...view that harmonizes with this data."
*Many thanks to Louis Berkhof and J.I. Packer for the Scripture references.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
" Thought #1:
ReplyDeleteLimited Atonement is not about how valuable the blood of Jesus is. Rather, it is a statement about the Son's intent in coming and laying down his life "of my own accord." What was Jesus' intent, in other words? J.I. Packer defines limited atonement in this way: "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." "
Four point Calvinist would agree that Jesus by His death intended to save only the elect. That really is not the issue with them. The issue is really about the design of Jesus's propitiation, redemption and reconciliation. They would hold it is provisionally for the lost and applied only to the elect. Both sides would agree it is unlimited in it's value and limited in it's intended application. It is really a question of the provisional aspect of it and not the intended application.
" Thought #2:
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that the Father elected only some, that the Spirit draws only some, then by denying Limited Atonement, you set the Son against the Father in his purpose, because you have the Father choosing some, the Spirit drawing some, and the Son atoning for all with the intention of saving all. This creates a Trinitarian dilemma which I would not want to find myself in. Rather, let us say that the Father chooses his elect, the Spirit draws the elect, and the Son removes the sin of the elect, giving them His own righteousness in their place. This is the single-minded purpose of God in salvation and brings him great glory. "
This is really a strawman argument. They dont hold that Jesus died with the intention of " saving all " and does not reflect the design of Jesus death that the four point Calvinist would hold to. They hold that the intended application of the value of the death of Jesus is limited to the elect. And that the elect alone are intended to be saved by it. Their view of it teaches Jesus died to make salvation possible for the lost and made it certain for those who have faith in Jesus. The work of the Trinity is in harmony with each other. Remember the elect are chosen out of the mass of lost humanity. The intended saving of only the elect is maintained.
"Thought #3:
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus really did atone for the sins of those in Hell, not only are we to accuse God of double jeopardy (punishing the same sin twice), but we have a situation where someone's sin has been removed. But then what sin, does the person suffer for in Hell? I have heard many argue that they are punished for their unbelief. However, John Owen famously argued that if Christ died for all of the sinner's sins, then He also must have died for their sin of unbelief. If, then, Owen argued, the sin of unbelief has been atoned for, they have no grounds for punishment in Hell. And if someone argues that all sins except for unbelief are atoned for, then it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement, but the person who is saying that Christ does not die for all of a person's sins. "
Scripture teaches that a person remains lost and goes to hell because of unbelief in Jesus and not because Jesus did not die for them. John Owen failed to consider the text John 8:24 and John 3:18 on this in a serious manner as it contradicts his premise. It is on this basis that the " Owenism " strain of Calvinistic thought is wrong and borders on hyper calvinism. Taken to it's logical conclusion it removes the necessity for faith in Jesus Christ or downplays it. Though Owen himself affirms the elect must come to faith. So in reality he uses the logical fallacy of special pleading. Scripture affirms as long as a person is in a state of unbelief such a person is under just condemnation, This applies to all humanity even the elect. The elect are in a state of condemnation so long as they are in an unregenerate state. See Eph 2:1-6 . Owen failed to properly consider Romans 8:1 which teaches that Christians are not under condemnation. This refers to the elect in a regenerate state. The flow of the argument of Owen is that no ones sins are automatically forgiven. A person is forgiven of all their sins including the sin of unbelief when they come to faith in Jesus. We have Acts 10:43 and Col. 2:13 as sufficient proof. The arguments of John Owen assumes his specific view of the design of Jesus death and does not factor in how those who disagrees with hold to as far as their view of the design is concerned. His argument holds no water for those who hold that Jesus died to make salvation possible for the lost and applied only to those who have faith. If we take Owen at face value then the elect were automatically saved apart from faith in Christ when Jesus died on the cross and those was never in a state of condemnation at all. The double payment argument does not apply to four point Calvinist. Though it would have merit with the historical Arminian view of the design of Jesus death. If we take Owen serious then the value of Jesus death is limited in it's value since in his view Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. Thus hyper Calvinism is the final logical conclusion which it could lead to. Since he affirms it is unlimited value of Jesus death he is in reality double talking and is using special pleading. Four point Calvinist affirm Jesus died because of the election of some and not all to salvation while strict five point Calvinist affirm men are elect because Christ died for them. Strict five point Calvinist are better off following Charles Hodge on this matter rather than John Owen.
" Thought #4:
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of verses which teach that anyone who believes will be saved, but these do not contradict Limited Atonement. Likewise, there are many verses which praise Christ's dying for "the world." Each of these verses, on their own may individually be answered. D.A. Carson argues that "both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love." And so we do. We affirm that Christ died for the world, but we are careful to define what we mean by that, as we should all do anyway. (Incidentally, I recommend Carson's article, which fleshes out his meaning quite a bit.) "
The basis issue is if Jesus died provisionally only for the elect or for the lost. Both already agree it is unlimited in it's value and limited in it's intended application.
"Thought #5:
ReplyDeleteThere are many verses which teach Christ's particular intention in laying down his life. This includes Christ talking about intending to save "His sheep": John 10:11, 15; "His Church," Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; "His people," Matt. 1:21, and "the elect," Rom. 8:32-35. Furthermore, The Bible does speak of Christ's only coming to save some: "John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:13-14; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; Rev. 5:9-10. We also see Jesus' particular intention to only lay down his life for his sheep in the high priestly prayer in John 17:9: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given to me."* If Jesus was trying to save each and every person who ever lived or ever would live, then this would be a very curious prayer, indeed. As Packer puts it, "Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only...view that harmonizes with this data." "
That reflects one of the major flows of the arguments of John Owen. Just because a text teaches Jesus died for the elect does not automatically mean He did not also die for the lost. Four Point Calvinist agrees with those text you cited as teaches Jesus died for the elect intending to save them alone. But that begs the question. The issue is not if Jesus died for the elect. All sides already affirm this . The issue is if Jesus died also for the lost. Once that fact is considered then a proper view of the design of the work of Jesus must be formulated that is consistant with Scripture exegetically. If we followed the flawed logic of John Owen then one can logically speaking claim Jesus died only for the apostle Paul since Paul says Jesus died for him in Galations 2:20. You miscited Joh 17:9 as evidence Jesus died for only the elect. The context of John 17 is not dealing with the issue of the extent of the atonement. At most it proves the intended application is limited to the elect if one tries to use this for limited atonement. It does not say who Jesus died for or who he did not die for. The four Point Calvinist believes that God intends to save the elect alone. And not " trying to save each and every person who ever lived or ever would live " . That is a clear strawman and a misrepresentation. Four point Calvinist are not Arminian . That argument applies to Arminians but it is wrong to use that towards four point Calvinist. That is why the argument is defective.