Mandy's Musings: Can someone please remind me ...

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Can someone please remind me ...

Why I might not believe in Limited Atonement?

I've been at Oak Hill four months now, and pretty much the whole time have copped good natured ribbing about only being a 4.5 point Calvinist (just like the rest of the Sydney Anglican Amyraldians) because I am not convinced of the merits of limited atonement (or effectual atonement as they prefer over here) . Until now I've held out - I've tried the insults:
* It is a doctrine without a text!
* I'm not convinced Calvin was a 5-pointer
* This is reformed scholasticism gone haywire
* This is an example of the system overriding the plain sense of the text.

But in the last few days as I've been studying for my doctrine of salvation exam I have become more and more persuaded of the arguments in favour of limited atonement.

I really don't want to give up the things that my Oak Hill brothers and sisters claim is entailed in a denial of limited atonement, such as the penal substitutionary nature of Christ's death or the monergistic nature of salvation. So that is one thing in favour of it.

But I'm also becoming convinced of their reading of the universalising texts (such as Titus 2:11, John 1:9) as meaning 'all' without distinction and pointing to the expansive nature of the gospel offer (ie both jew and gentile, slave and free, all classes of society), rather than viewing it as 'all' without exception. A similar reading applies to the 'world' texts in John.

My question is: what, if anything, do I lose by concluding that the atonement is limited to the elect only?

127 Comments:

A God whose love is expansive, and not limited to the few.
A sense of the senselessness of sin, that it can reject the grace of God.
An honesty in your exegesis: there are not only the positive 'all' passages, there are also the negative 'none to perish' passages (e.g. 2 Peter 3.9).

Don't do it Mandy! (Though we'll still love you if you fall...)

By byron smith, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:35:00 am
I don't have anything intelligent to add, being a lowly 1st year theological student and a long was from the doctrine of salvation class. But a word of advice don't get caught up with the England vs Australian nature of the argument. (you'd only loose).

Do you see what I've done there, I have turned a deep theological discussion, 4 1/2 pointer or 5 pointer, to a one pointer slanging match along historical, stereotyped, national boundaries.

By Big Pete, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:36:00 pm
Obviously a single verse only carries limited weight, but I am yet to hear a convincing interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 by someone who holds to limited atonement.

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves."

The key question is - What does it mean for these false teachers to be bought (agorazo) by the sovereign Lord (despotes)?

The most obvious reading is that they were purchased/redeemed by Christ’s blood, however this would contradict LA.

So what else could Peter mean? So far I’ve only heard two attempts to resolve this (If anybody has another way to read this passage I’m keen to hear it):

In Doc 3 Last year our lecturer mentioned a new theory that he was toying with which understands this verse as saying, they had been bought for destruction by Christ’s blood.

I’ve also heard LA supporters argue that "despotes" here is not a reference to Christ in particular but to God in general and that "agorazo" should be understood as referring to God’s ownership over all mankind – in other words, he bought them by creating them.

Both of these explanations sound like a stretch to me. Anybody got another way to explain this verse? How do your Oak Hill friends handle this verse Mandy?

BTW this verse is also problematic for the P of TULIP

PAX

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:24:00 pm
The 2 Peter argument runs that there is a difference between the covenant people of God and the elect. So historically, there has been an emphasis on the reality of the visible historical covenant people, on the fact that it is right to treat as Christians those who appear to fall within the historical covenant people of God, the Christian church. But there are members of this covenant people who are not elect (ie who do not have their salvation decreed eternally by God).

2 Peter 2:1 points to the fact that the covenant people and the elect are not coterminous. Peter is in the middle a discussion where he is arguing that the true OT prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit, and he contrasts them with the false prophets among the people of God and says that there will be similar false teachers in the NT church.

Rather than arguing that the agorazo refers to everyone being bought by virtue of God creating them, the Oak Hill argument runs that in the OT that God speaks of redeeming the whole people of Israel. That is, there is a corporate nature to redemption, however, many were redeemed out of Egypt who were not actually redeembed in the eternal sense of the word.

This is the key (so the argument goes)to 2 Peter 2:1 - in the NT as well as the old there are a category of people who have enjoyed the benefits of redemption by being included in the people of God, but who are not believers. Their being 'bought' or redeemed by Christ does not mean that theri sins have actually been paid for with eternal effect. They are redeemed in the sense they have become part of the visible, hostorical people of God and enjoyed a temporary separation from the world, but not eternally.

Does it fly?

By Mandy, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:34:00 pm
Here are some of the comments i got from my fellow MTC students - i've kept them anonymous.

There is a good reason not to be a limited atonementist. Coz the bible says otherwise.

ESV John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,
"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away THE SIN OF THE WORLD!"
John the Baptist doesn't say "who takes away the sin of those who God has called through predestination and they have responded". He says, "the sins
of the WORLD".

ESV Romans 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Jesus died so that sin would reign NO MORE and grace would reign. For that
to happen he had to deal with ALL sin. Not just the sins of the elect.

These are just a few I could find quickly by typing "sin" and "Jesus" into bibleworks and doing a search through the ESV. Please don't give in to the limited atonement debate. It leads to hypercalvinism which is unbiblical and ends in people neglecting evangelism altogether. Why would people want to be
limited atonementists anyway? It's just a way of excluding others from the kingdom. I thought Jesus came cause God loves his WHOLE creation and he wanted everyone to repent and believe. Isn't that the point. People think because they read and write big books and do cosmetic surgery on the Greek
that they can justify things that the bible does not say. Take them back to the plain text and make them read it for what it says, not what they want to see. Limited Atonement is not the childlike faith Jesus calls us to. It's an
invention of proud human minds. Minds that are trying to explain the big, hard things about God by jamming thing into the tiny human mindset. Paul told us not to dwell too much on Predestination for this very reason (can't
remember the bible ref. sorry). Don't let them break you down. I hope this encouraging.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:51:00 pm
You go girl!

Owen slightly overstates his case but chapter 4 is the clincher. It gets dealt with in the “Atonement” course set down for 2nd semester. Lecturer gets it wrong of course but if you can do it, or audit that subject then you’ll see the Sydney case. Knox makes a mess of it in his book so better to talk to a lecturer.

LA also makes sense of the way that the Apostles, and evangelists, speak about the atonement to unbelievers in the Bible and makes the contrast between the way we do it quite dramatic. (The Apostles don’t mention it, we tend to say “Jesus died for you”, or similar).

Being at Moore has made me a Biblicist I think. So I don’t think LA is a ‘biblical’ doctrine. But it’s the only way that we can make sense of the data. So I don’t think I’d ever teach LA from the pulpit but I still believe it. If that makes sense.

I’m looking forward to getting a pasting for these comments. Unless everyone’s gone soft?

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:54:00 pm
I personally can't get past 1 John 2:2 as being explicitly unlimited.
The "all" argument you mentioned just doesn't seem to work here. 1 John is so universal in the we/us language (converts whether Jew or Gentile) and this is the way most people insist on reading 1 John 1:8-10 so then it must be read
the same in 1 John 2:2.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:00:00 pm
the last comment about 1 Jn 2:2 and 1 Jn 1;8-9 is a good one.

You can try and argue that the context is determinative of how the 'all' should be read in each verse, but that does lead to problems in 1:8-9, because does it then mean that all unrighteousness without distinction is cleansed, but only if confessed?

I'm wavering back!

By Mandy, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:05:00 pm
Hmm... "We're not Universalists". That's all Limited Atonement is saying. Christ died for the elect, but given that we don't know who the elect are, we preach Christ to the whole world. Christ's death is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, if only the whole world would turn to Him and repent!

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:08:00 pm
Ah, this is exactly where my problems began ...

If Christ's death is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, then why didn't it?

If it is all down to us repenting and believing, then salvation becomes my work and not God's work.

If we say, but no, we can only repent and believe because of God's gift of the spirit, does that mean that the members of the trinity have different purposes (not something I'd want to say)?

i.e. the Son on the cross purposed for the salvation of all, did everything that was needed, but the Spirit only did the work in a limited number of people while the Father was sitting on his own? (a charicature to try and make the point)

By Mandy, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:12:00 pm
And here is another comment from an anonymous MTC student called Paget:

Sounds like special pleading to me. It is by being ‘in Christ’ that we are not of the world. Jesus says that none whom the Father has given him will be taken from his hand. Not sure how you can be ‘temporarily’ out of the world, then. Unless they grow more than petunias in the solarium.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:36:00 pm
Mandy, thanks for that covenantal explanation of 2 Peter 2:1, it certainly does sound a lot more feasible than the two “stretched” interpretations I mentioned.

Does it fly? … maybe, but I think there is some more work to be done before it will get off the ground.

The thing I find hardest to accept about this explanation is that an unbeliever, who is hanging out with the visible church, has been redeemed (in any sense of the word). I am happy to say that she is experiencing a redeemed community but not that she has herself been redeemed.

PAX

By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:12:00 pm
This is really for 'anonymous' who believes in LA but wouldn't teach it, but also for those who think LA is a doctrine without a text.

What else can Paul have in mind when he writes Romans 8:32? If God did not spare his Son for us how will he not graciously give us all things (i.e. the atonement and all ensuing blessings). Paul seems to be pretty clear that Christ dying for someone and them receiving the benefits are inextricably linked - i.e. effectual atonement.

So why not teach LA when you teach Romans 8?

[a quick plea - in a long discussion like this, it's really confusing to have lots of anonymous's by different people - why not just use a fake name, Mickey Mouse will do, so we can follow who's saying what. Thanks!]

By Ros, at Friday, May 26, 2006 5:09:00 am
Sorry, Mandy - meant to say 'Welcome to the wonderful world of the five-pointers'!

By Ros, at Friday, May 26, 2006 5:10:00 am
In answer to prof. Barrie, I would like to reverse the challenge on these two verses that seem to have isolated themselves as the key players. I would like to see a theological explanation of these verses that harmonises our doctrine of assurance in the light of the atonement.

What I mean is this:

2 Peter 2:1 uses the agopazo language and yet seems to be speaking about some who have been "bought" or "redeemed" facing destruction, hence the dilemma. If that is the case then how can I, who also have been redeemed (agopazo) have any security given that Romans 8 so clearly states that nothing can separate me from the love of Christ? To say that some who were actually atoned for, in the fullest sense, will now have to face destruction, in the fullest sense, is a big charge and one that cannot be taken lightly, especially given that gospel that we so often present in our evangelism. I think that the answers that I have heard to this problem are insufficient. If this is true then we cannot tell an unbeliever that if they repent and believe then their sins will be forgiven. Likewise, we can't teach assurance to our Christian flock.

1 John 2:2 uses hilasterion language. Whatever or whoever is meant by "whole world" must not have any wrath facing them because Jesus has been their propitiation. The dilemma here is: how can God punish both Jesus and the person whom Jesus turned away wrath from? The personal question then becomes, if my salvation is secured in the cross of Christ, which the bible clearly teaches, then an 'open' interpretation of this verse suggests that possibly the cross is not enough? Is also raises questions about the justice of God.

As a reference point can I suggest that the canons of Dort are worth reading - which by the way are infralapsarian! You can access them online at: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm.

I will include an excerpt below from the key bit of the argument. I would also like to point out that the modern reformed theologians like to use the phrase "definite atonement" to speak of the more positive nature of the doctrine. This is good since Dort in the first place was primarily an answer to heresy.

One final challenge. For those who reject the canons of Dort, are there any parts of the Remonstrance (the document that Dort was refuting) on this issue that you want to affirm?

Those who believe in LA have long pointed to the work of John Owen. To refute LA you really need to deal with his book "The Death of Death". That is the book that our lecturer will undoubtedly send us to next semester.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 8. For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.

By Anonymous, at Friday, May 26, 2006 5:18:00 pm
Thanks Steve. I agree that 2 Pe 2:1 seems to suggest that some who have been redeemed end up facing destruction. This is the point I was alluding to when I said, in my first post, that this verse is also problematic for the P of TULIP.

2 Pe 2:1 is one of many verses which make me suspicious of the doctrine that once somebody truly becomes a Christian they cannot fall away – these verses, and the fact that it was not taught by a single figure in Church history until the sixteenth century : )

(Just in case you’re wondering I don’t have an extensive knowledge of Church history – but I have heard the above claim made a couple of times in debate and both times the pro Calvinist debater was unable to come up with a single person who taught this doctrine. I’ve also asked Baddeley, Thompson and Poulos for a name but none of them could provide one. If anyone can provide a reference to refute this Church history claim I would be very interested in seeing it)

Personally I’m still trying to work out whether I should accept the doctrine that a true Christian cannot fall away – I’m hopping Brendan will answer all my questions when he delivers his “Issues in Theology” paper on it later in the year – no pressure big guy.

By Anonymous, at Friday, May 26, 2006 9:35:00 pm
1 Tim 4:10 is another verse worth considering.

We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Seems to me that this is saying God is the Saviour of believers and unbelievers, but there is a differentiation (“especially of those who believe”). If I’m right that “all men” in this verse includes unbelievers, then that might inform our reading of 1 Tim 2:6 as well (i.e. in 1 Tim 2:6 “all men” = believers + unbelievers, not believing Jews + believing Gentiles). So we could add 1 Tim 2:6 to the list of verses that refute limited/definite atonement.

What accounts for the differentiation in 1 Tim 4:10? Perhaps the distinction we’re grasping at when we say, “sufficient for all, efficient for some”? God’s acts in election, effectual calling, regeneration and preservation of believers?

In response to your comments about security, Romans 8 says that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ. The security (objective) and assurance (subjective) of the believer are not located in myself, but in Christ. In 2 Pet 2:1 the false teachers “deny the sovereign Lord”. Of course there is no assurance for them! But those who do not deny the Lord, but rather believe in him, have been justified and so are assured of salvation from the coming wrath.

By Anonymous, at Friday, May 26, 2006 10:32:00 pm
'Seems to me that this is saying God is the Saviour of believers and unbelievers, but there is a differentiation (“especially of those who believe”).'

I think I agree, but am pondering: in what sense can we say that God is the Saviour of unbelievers? Is it he is their saviour because he upholds them within his creation? This seems a bit weak to me.

The Romans 8 issue takes us full circle - we can have assurance if we are in Christ; we are in Christ because of the Spirit; the Spirit unites us to Christ and the benefit of his death; if the benefit of Christ's death is for all then do Christ and the Spirit have different purposes? Are we forced to the logical conclusion that in order to not separate the work of Christ and the Spirit (and the Father) to say that therefore the benefit of Christ's death can only be for the elect (and therefore is limited)?

By Mandy, at Friday, May 26, 2006 10:50:00 pm
Don't do it Mandy, don't do it!

I don't think I can add anything. However, it IS fair to say that LA is a case of over-systematising.

For mine, the whole problem is that this type of Calvinism STARTS with a philosophically determined doctrine of God and THEN goes to the text. The text gets squashed into the pre-existing framework. This is also the problem with biblical inerrancy as a doctrine too...

By michael jensen, at Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:38:00 am
Hi Mandy. Michelle P told me you've been thinking this through. Hope you don't mind me joining in with a few reflections.

1. Both sides in this discussion would do well to read the five pages (323-328) headed 'The Theologian's Character: The Ethics of Theology' in John Frame's 'The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God' (P&R, 1987). See here for a brief summary and some comments on how his approach might help us reach some unity over this question.

2. If the expansiveness of God's love and his desire for the salvation of all rules out limited atonement, does it also rule out election?

3. Does Scripture say that God loves all people without exception in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent? Or does it ever describe him having a special love for his people (e.g. Ro 9:13)?

4. Exegetical honesty: I agree there are texts which, read in isolation, might seem to support universal atonement. But there are other texts which support limited atonement. For example, Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25-27; John 10:14-15; Titus 2:14; Revelation 5:9. The standard response to these texts from universalists is that they don't say that Christ only died for his sheep, his church, his bride, his people. They can therefore be understood in a universalist sense.

But hang on a moment. If you consider these texts in isolation, is not the most natural interpretation that the Father and Son had the church particularly in mind as the beneficiaries of Christ's death? In John 10, for example, Christ's sheep are distinguished from non-sheep (26-29) as the particular objects of his love and protection. He lays down his life for the sheep precisely because he knows them and owns them (11-15).

But of course we don't interpret these texts in isolation. The universalist reads them in the context of what he or she believes Scripture teaches elsewhere. That's right and proper, for God's word is true, and therefore consistent.

That being the case, please can we all agree that both positions are attempting to understand what the whole of Scripture teaches about the significance of Christ's death? If we did that, perhaps we could engage honestly with one another's interpretations rather than dismissing them as attempts to "squash" the text into a pre-existing framework.

John Owen examines all of the major "problem texts" in "The Death of Death". You may or may not agree with him, but to question his submission to the word of God is horrendously unfair. If the universalists fail to provide convincing exegesis of the problem texts on the other side, then I'm afraid it is their commitment to Scripture that must be questioned.

Perhaps you could start with John 10 and then do Romans 8:32, which Ros has already mentioned. Would someone like to have a go at explaining how I can interpret this verse in such a way that God would give up his Son for me and not give me the eternal life his death procured, or the faith I need to appropriate that life?

5. If you think that limited atonement, rightly understood, leads to hypercalvinism and the neglect of evangelism, have you ever wondered who's more likely to have misunderstood the doctrine: you or the many zealous evangelists like George Whitefield who have held to it?

By Chris Thomson, at Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:53:00 pm
Sorry, just in case it wasn't clear: by "you" in those last couple of paragraphs I mean "you, anonymous" rather than "you, Mandy"!

By Chris Thomson, at Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:03:00 pm
On the 'doctrine-without-a-text' and 'over-systematizing' objections to LA:

TEXT
Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

QUESTION
To whom will God give 'all things'?

ANSWER
'us', the same people for whom God 'did not spare his own son'.

INFERENCE
This text teaches that the people for whom God gave his Son will also receive 'all things' - including eternal life. That is, the group for whom Christ died is precisely co-extensive with those who will finally receve all the blessings of God in Christ. Universal atonement would therefore imply universal salvation. Particular Redemption (LA) would not.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:15:00 pm
"If you think that limited atonement, rightly understood, leads to hypercalvinism and the neglect of evangelism, have you ever wondered who's more likely to have misunderstood the doctrine: you or the many zealous evangelists like George Whitefield who have held to it?"

Good point!

By Ros, at Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:39:00 am
To Chris and Steve, ... thanks for your comments.

However, to clarify, are you sure you mean universalists and universal atonement? As I understand it, a universalist necessarily believes that all will be saved in the end, which I don't believe the Moore College students above, or I, would advocate. We would probably all deny universalism in that sense.

However, to say that Christ's atonement was "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect" is not universalism.

And Romans 8:32 is not in dispute - we would say that contextually, Paul is referring to the redeemed community, the elect, when he refers to "us" in that verse.

That cannot be said for 2 Pet 2:1, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 Jn 2:2 and the other verses mentioned above.

Also, Chris, I like your comments above that "both positions are attempting to understand what the whole of Scripture teaches about the significance of Christ's death" and on your blog site "to let's not fight over labels".

If you say that "proponents of 'universal' and 'limited' atonement are both seeking to preserve one important aspect of the truth. There's a sense in which Christ's death is universal in its extent and a sense in which it isn't" (which I generally agree with, though I question your use and understanding of the term 'universal'), then wouldn't "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" better describe Christ's atonement than "limited atonement", given the tension with which it is presented in Scripture?

I suggest that this would be reforming not just our understanding of Scripture, but our terminology and labels as well, since the "traditional terminology" does not do justice to Scripture.

[Keep at 'em Mandy! Don't cave in!!! You set 'em straight!! :-)]

By Anonymous, at Sunday, May 28, 2006 10:17:00 pm
Anonymity: an explanation
The anonymity of some comments from MTC students stems from the fact that their group email comments have been posted here by others. Part of what is at stake is whether this discussion is purely for all MTC 4th years, or is also open to Mandy's UK friends (hi all of you!), and the general reading public, that great stream of the general unwashed who frequent her fascinating blog. :-)

Unfortunately, this program only sends an email to Mandy when someone posts here, but others who might be interested need to keep coming back to check, whereas with a group email, you're immediately aware of a new contribution. To get the best of both worlds, some are choosing to only email and others then add their comments to this page under 'anonymous'.

By byron smith, at Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:16:00 pm
"And Romans 8:32 is not in dispute - we would say that contextually, Paul is referring to the redeemed community, the elect, when he refers to "us" in that verse."

But that's exactly the point. Those for whom God gave up his son are the same as those to whom he graciously gives all things. The natural reading of this verse is that there cannot be a group of people for whom God gave up his son who do not also receive all the benefits of that. So it is about the elect, but it also excludes the non-elect from God's intention in sending his son.

And on the universalist/universal atonement point. Fair enough, we could distinguish the two positions you outline but if you hold that God intended the atonement to be effective for all (but some refuse it) then you have to say that our sin can frustrate God's purposes. Which leaves you with not much of a God. If you simply hold that it is sufficient for all but not intended for all, then you're back to the LA position. So it seems to me that in universal atonement leads to actual universalism or full-blown Arminianism. Your choice.

By Ros, at Monday, May 29, 2006 4:07:00 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Ros, at Monday, May 29, 2006 4:11:00 am
"wouldn't "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" better describe Christ's atonement than "limited atonement"?"

I agree that 'limited' is a pretty unhelpful term to use with respect to the atonement - which is why 'effectual atonement' or 'particular redemption' have been coined!

The problem I have with the expression you suggest is the phrase 'sufficient for all' - in what sense can it be sufficient if not effective? If it doesn't achieve the intended effect, then it must be insufficient? Mustn't it?

By Ros, at Monday, May 29, 2006 4:14:00 am
Well, a few thoughts from me, which I hope will be enjoyable, helpful and godly: 9 points of Calvinism:

0. By the way, did you know that in the dinning hall at Oak Hill there is a crest with the motto, "Be Right and Persist!". Wise words, I think we can all agree.

1. Yes, lets be nice. Lets not be rude or silly either - especially about Dr William's excellent arguments and superior mind, morals and practice. Childlike but not childish

2. Shouting texts that you misunderstand and that your opponents know about already and have dealt with perfecly well already is not an argument. DO CAPITAL LETTERS REALLY HELP? Perhaps enclsosing what you want to emphasise in * s like *this* is a better way of indicating emphasis in plain text?

3. Lots of the Moore people seem to need to distinguish: in what sense in this context etc? Avoid the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy. Or indeed, "this word makes me think of this so this is what it must always mean whoever uses it wherever". True, a bit of presupositional (Van Til-esque) perspectivalism, (Frame et al) would always help. Good reccomended reading, Thomo. Maybe I've broken some of Frame's rules here?

4. I dont think there is an Oak Hill line or argument on this or a complete consensus amongst faculty or students so that party spirit is not the greatest help.

5. What is the difference between over-systematising and thinking through the true and necessary consequence of a passage and making sure you dont expound one text such that it is repugnent to another, as the Westminster Confession and 39 Articles would admonish us? Is not God faithfull and consistent and coherent? Do not the revealed things belong to us and is it not our duty and our glory to search them out, rather than making a virtue of the supposed incoherence (to us) of God's revelation, because we cannot know the unsearchable mind of God? What is it with all this Barthian anti-rationality stuff anyway?

6. So is Revd ? Mr ? Dr? Professor? Dave Barrie getting rid of the P petal now too? There are surely many unquestionable perseverence of all true believers to the end texts. I reckon we could easily show that the perseverence of the saints is the Orthodox consensus throughout time. Maybe there arent famous names as everyone thought it?

7. Some of the debate may be confused as some of the American Alburn Avenue Covenantal Objectivists Reformed Is Not Enough chaps use the term Christian to mean Baptised Non-excommunicate included in the objective covenant professing (if adult) and Believer to mean truly regenerate elect to ultimate salvation.

8. Is the "stretched" "natural" "plain sense" reading stuff just a way of saying "natural to me", ie i havent heard your argument before and it seems a bit strange to my excentric and parochial ears?

9. Yes, good point, Ros.Please would someone list the HyperCalvinists at Oak Hill - or indeed pretty much anywhere today AND - oops, *and* - show a necessary or even "natural" link to limited atonemnet? It is interesting that Dr Williams is being so active in Divinci Code evangelism at the moment when he neednt bother and might have better things to do with his time. (Even if perhaps he is being a bit too evidentialist and argumentative for some of our Barthian friensds?) A covenant sucession Covenant Household generational theology style is more likely to lead to less cold contact evangelistic effort, perhaps, but that's hardly the Limited Atonement point.

By Marc Lloyd, at Monday, May 29, 2006 6:07:00 pm
Romans 8 again:

TEXT
Romans 8:32
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

PAUL'S PURPOSE
Paul's purpose here is to assure his hearers that, despite their present trials, they will assuredly one day receive 'all things'. In order to persuade them of this, he points out that God has already given them his Son - that is, his Son died *for them* (thanks Marc). He then reasons that, since God has given them his most treasured possession (his Son), he will surely give them everything else.

INHERENT LOGIC
Paul's point only works here because he ASSUMES (sorry, *assumes*) that everyone for whom Christ died will also receive eternal life. Paul cannot possibly believe that there are any for whom Christ died who will not receive eternal life, for if he did then the assurance of the former would not entail any assurance of the latter.

Proponents of universal atonement *do*, however, believe this. UA says precisely that there are many millions for whom Christ died who will eventually perish. Paul, on the other hand, says that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved.

Put it another way: This text requires us to believe that the people for whom Christ died are co-terminous with those who will be saved.

Consequently, if Paul held to a universal atonement, this would therefore imply that he must also hold to universal salvation. But he does not believe the latter, and therefore cannot believe the former.

Paul, quite plainly, assumes a doctrine of limited atonement in this text.

:-)

By Anonymous, at Monday, May 29, 2006 6:36:00 pm
Sorry - dreadful grammar... what I meant was:

"Put it another way: This text requires us to believe that the *group of* people for whom Christ died *is* co-terminous with those who will be saved."

Sorry...

:-)

S

PS
Thanks for letting us borrow Mandy for a few months. We all think she's fantastic, and we've had a great time getting to know her...

:-)

By Anonymous, at Monday, May 29, 2006 6:47:00 pm
This comment is not about the issue but the manner of the discussion.

Can everyone please try and remember that the people making comments in this discussion (on both sides) are friends of mine who I care about lots (even when I don't agree with them on everything).

Can we please focus on the issues and not sling mud or resort to a MTC v Oak Hill for the sake of it!

By Mandy, at Monday, May 29, 2006 6:50:00 pm
Well I have re-read the discussion here, and I can't quite see why some are reacting as if it has been carried out in an inappropriate manner (pace Mark Lloyd). I would say that I think the term 'universalist' when applied to my position is one that is misleading. I think we can say that the arguments from consequences (this or that position leads to lack of evangelism or whatever) are completely irrelevant. What matters is: which position makes better theological and biblical sense?
We could also ask about why this debate matters so much? That would be a really great question to ask to people of both sides. For me, it goes to the nature of God and to a very significant hermeneutical issue: do we assume that behind the God we meet in scripture is another more logical God? And, do we let the narrative of Scripture govern our theology or is our theological system the determiner of scripture? (BTW I am immune to the insult 'Barthian'!).
It is worth noting that many of the texts that LA proponents offer as evidence do not overtly teach it to the exclusion of the non-LA position. Carson in his Love of God book is quite excellent on this.
I have a couple of theological (rather than exegetical) points to add for consideration:
1 - i haven't seen anyone deal with my contention that LA is the result of starting the theological system with an abstract doctrine of God conditioned by the philosophy of Aristotle rather than with the drama of salvation-history and especially Christ. You can see this tendency in Owen and others however biblically committed they thought they were. Owen uses Aristotelian language and categories which then govern his whole theological system.
2 - a conceptual difficulty also arises because the atonement is conceived of as being an amount of 'stuff' that you can limit, like liquid in a bottle.
3 - the syllogism on which in depends (something like 'what God wills, sin cannot deny') is perhaps the problem. There is a hermeneutical problem here, isn't there, because the nature of God has already been decided...
4 - it is worth asking how the doctrine of creation - and God's love for all that he has made - fits in.
5. The relation of election in the whole biblical narrative to God's plan for the whole world needs to be accounted for. God's particular election has the whole cosmos in view, even when you think of Abraham and Israel...
6. LA (I would argue) is not Christocentric enough: since the full revelation of God's wrath and his love in his Son, the whole world is now judged according to this standard... The rejection of God's offer of redemption really is inexcuseable. But if LA holds of course it isn't a real offer anyway...
7. I am always suspicious of theology falling into too neat a 'system.' This is not an anti-rationalism: rather it suggests that theology has become beholden to some other system of rationality other than its own. I think this is the case here.
Well that's enough for now: I hope that gets the ball rolling in a theological direction.

By michael jensen, at Monday, May 29, 2006 7:15:00 pm
Having studied with Steve (Jeffery) in another place... I agree with anything he says! And so should you! Love your pics Mandy - nothing of Durdle Door though...

By Anonymous, at Monday, May 29, 2006 8:40:00 pm
Andy, your question is fair, and I agree labels are not unimportant (although I still think we need to learn to see past them sometimes).

Having said that, I use the term 'universal atonement' advisedly. As I understand it, the difference between us concerns precisely the question whether Christ made atonement for the sins of all people ('universal atonement') or only some people ('limited atonement').

That being the question, 'universalist' was meant as a shorthand for those who take the 'universal' rather than the 'limited' view. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that anyone is arguing for universal salvation, as opposed to universal atonement. I know that some people would argue that the former is entailed by the latter, but that’s not what I meant to imply, so I’m sorry if the terminology caused confusion.

The fact that 'universalist' can mean different things in different contexts is a good reminder that answers are only useful if we know what the question is.

That’s one of the reasons I love Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3 vols; P&R, 1992). He’s brilliant at clarifying exactly what the question is (and what it isn’t), before he attempts to answer it, and his 28 pages (vol 2, pp. 455-82) on the extent of the atonement are characteristically clear and helpful. I heartily recommend them if you want to engage seriously with the case for limited atonement but you haven’t got the time or the inclination to read Owen’s The Death of Death (and even if you have, I’d recommend reading Turretin first).

Incidentally, Turretin addresses Dave’s charge that nobody held to limited atonement until the 16th century. He cites Prosper, Augustine, Gottschalk, Fulgentius, Remigius and a Council of Valentine III in 855. He also addresses all of the main scriptural objections, and in my view offers a plausible explanation of 2 Peter 2:1 (which is admittedly tricky) as referring to 'a setting apart to the work of ministry for which they were in a certain measure bought by Christ (as the Lord), who had acquired them and made them his own by calling them into his house (as masters formerly bought servants and employed them in domestic duties).' (pp. 475-6)

Michael helpfully asks why this question matters so much, and makes some good points from his perspective (Michael, we haven’t met by the way but I’m Mandy’s exchange for the semester). So let me mention a few of the things that limited atonement seeks to preserve:

1. The nature of the atonement as an actual (i.e. not merely potential) propitiation, expiation, substitution, redemption and satisfaction.

2. The effectiveness of the atonement: if Christ died to save all people, and not all are saved, then has he not failed in his purpose?

3. God’s justice: if Christ has made sufficient payment for the sins of the reprobate, then how can God count those sins against them?

4. The Trinity, specifically the unity of the works of the Father, Son and Spirit: if the Father elects only some, and the Spirit regenerates only some, why does the Son die for all?

5. The connection between Christ’s atonement and his intercession (1 Jn 2:1-2; Rom 8:34). If he died for all, why does he not pray for all (cf. John 17:9)?

Briefly, in response to Michael’s points:

1. I’m not sufficiently familiar with Aristotle’s philosophy to assess his contribution to Owen’s interpretation of Scripture. But don’t we all have to start somewhere? That is, doesn’t each of us initially approach Scripture in the light of our prior understanding and experiences? The question is whether we’re willing for Scripture to challenge and transform that understanding.

If you’re arguing that limited atonement depends on Aristotelian principles which are inconsistent with Scripture, then please could you give some examples?

2. The claim is not that the atonement itself is 'stuff you can limit', but rather that the objects of the atonement are limited to the elect. That is, the question is not 'how much did Jesus die?' but 'who did Jesus die for?'

3. I don’t think limited atonement depends on the syllogism you cite, (which I'm not familiar with). The 'logic' of it (and, as I’ve tried to suggest, I think it is a Scriptural doctrine not just a logical one) is that if Christ died as a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of all people, then by definition there’s nothing more to pay and God cannot justly hold any sin against anyone.

4. God certainly loves all he has made, just not all in the same way. Isn’t this entailed by the doctrine of election, irrespective of which way we go on the atonement? I think Carson addresses this theme in the book you cited.

5. Absolutely. Limited atonement doesn’t deny that God has the whole cosmos in view in his plan of salvation. But that doesn’t mean that it is his plan that every individual member of the cosmos is saved.

6. Limited atonement doesn’t preclude a genuine offer being made to the whole world: 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved'. For Christ died to secure the salvation of everybody who would believe in him. To argue that the offer isn’t genuine in the case of the non-elect, merely because Christ didn't die for those who would not accept it is to make an assumption which I'm not convinced is justified by Scripture, and which, if true, would again seem to rule out election no less than limited atonement.

7. I agree that we must always test our systems against Scripture. But the choice here is not between 'Scripture' and 'a system'; it’s between two systems, two interpretations of Scripture (and many of your own arguments here are systematic ones).

I’m not trying to suggest that there is a 'more logical God' behind 'the God we meet in Scripture'. Far from it. Rather, the God of Scripture is logical. You only have to count the number of times words like 'therefore', 'if … then', and 'so' occur. Or consider the logic of some of Jesus’ arguments (e.g. Mark 12:24-27, 35-37).

Similarly, you ask whether we 'let the narrative of Scripture govern our theology' or vice versa. But why does it have to be either/or? Scripture is theology and narrative, and the two are wonderfully consistent.

By Chris Thomson, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:14:00 am
Hello old Moore College friends! It wasn't my fault what happened to Mandy, honest. OK, so our house did buy her a copy of "The Death of Death" as a birthday present, but only in a spirit of gentle teasing. Only fair, given the grief you all gave me for being a 5-pointer when I was Down Under! (joking).

Perhaps I don't have time for this, since I ought to be revising for impending exams, but given that one of them is on the Doctrine of Salvation, it kind of counts as revision.

I thought my most helpful contribution might be to point out the intrinsic (as I see it) link between LA and penal substitution. Picking up d's post:

Did Jesus die for those who in the fullness of time will be perfected in the plans of God as rebels? Why not?

The problem is clear if we ask what Christ dying for someone entails. Does it mean that he "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24)? If so, then the person for whom Christ has died has had their sins borne by Christ and paid for. If God demands satisfaction for those same sins again, then his justice is impugned, for he would be punishing the same sins twice. Yet this is exactly what universal redemption would imply: there will be some people paying for their sins in hell, for whom Christ has already paid.

Interestingly, this arguement has been used in two very different ways. John Owen, assuming the truth of penal substitution, employs it to argue the fallaciousness of universal redemption (Death of Death The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [London: Banner of Truth, 1959], p. 63). The
American philosopher of religion, Eleanore Stump, assuming the truth of universal redemption, employs it to argue against penal substitution (Eleonore Stump, ‘Atonement According to Aquinas’, in Philosophy and the Christian Faith, ed. Thomas V. Morris [Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988], pp. 61–91 [p. 63]). It is not clear to me how you can retain both penal substitution and universal redemption.

One reply I have heard from Dr. Doyle, in his 4th year "Atonement" lectures at Moore (if I understood him and have remembered him correctly; many apologies if not) was that my argument is wrongly founded on an "accounting" or "book-keeping" view of God's dealing with sin: to talk about "paying twice" assumes a 1:1 correspondence between sin and the retribution it warrants. As I've reflected on this however, I think I would want to defend exactly that premise. Without it, there is no necessary proportionality in God's response to sin, and without proportionality there can be no justice. Indeed, if "how much must be paid for a particular sin" is so flexible that my "paid twice" argument is invalid, I wonder why God could not decree simply that me being a bit sorry would suffice. In which case the cross would not be necessary at all (I'm not suggesting that anyone would argue like that, just trying to pursue the argument to it's logical conclusion).

Interested to hear people's thoughts, especially if they arrive before my exam!

With love to you all, with fond memories of you,

Sachy

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:20:00 am
A little appendix

'D', I don't think it is true to say that Jesus died for the trees and rocks. Rather the argument of Romans 8:19-21 seems to be that creation will be liberated as the "sons of God" are liberated (the inverse of what happened at the Fall, when the ground was cursed as a result of man's sin). Thus the future of the creation is connected to the future of God's new people. It is by dying specifically to save THEM, that he has made possible the liberation of the rocks, trees, fish, animals etc. - for now they have a true Adam to rule over them, together with his brothers and sisters (e.g. Hebrews 2:5ff.)

Right, must go now.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:36:00 am
Andrew: Jesus died for the trees and the rocks: Colossians 1:15-20!

Chris: Turretin is scarcely listing a 1st XI there, is he? And I am sure Augustine scholars would dispute his reading at that point (though I would have to check myself).

Andrew: it is unsurprising but I think Robert Doyle is right and that your response is unconvincing re proportionality and justice. It is interesting in many of the PSA texts - and there are not many remember! - 'sin' is often singular and 'us' is mostly plural... 'Sin' encompasses sins. Jesus dies for 'Sin' first and foremost: 2 Cor 5 for example. We ought also to remember the cosmic scope of what is achieved on the cross: not just payment of the penalty for sins, but the defeat of all that is evil and anti-God. It is hard to see the cross as a decisive defeat of all that is evil and yet only payment for some sin.

If you want to see Owen waxing all Aristotelian (I don't have his text in front of me and I haven't read him closely for a while I admit) check out his discussion of four causes using Aristotle's categories (necessary, efficient etc). This is what gets him into a lot of trouble! His whole framing of the discussion is on terms that come from Aristotle: God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause etc: and so he works his view of God out from these premises to the atonement.

Out of interest: do you hold to a general resurrection? How would that square with a limited atonement?

By michael jensen, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:09:00 am
Where there are some questions of point of historical fact /information in this discussion, why don't we get some real experts (apologies if you are one and you've said something here and I don't know) to tell us the answers? e.g. Dr Williams? e.g. Professor Trueman on (Mr Jensen's) the John Owen is sold out to Aristotelainism though he thinks he's sticking to the Bible stuff. We could ask them for their take on the whole thing while they're at it!

By Marc Lloyd, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:34:00 am
Dear Michael,

A little sparring match like old times. Perhaps you are just trying to provoke, in which case you win :-)

1) Jesus did die for the rocks. Sigh. Yes, ok. Can we distinguish (sorry to use a scholastic method of which some will be suspicious) in what sense of "for"? (a) "On their behalf", bearing the punishment they deserved for their sin? No. (b) "to their benefit"? Yes. But how is Christ's death to the rocks' benefit? Because he dies for his people, liberating them from sin and death. On that is predicated the liberation of creation. See my comment on Romans 8, which I think still stands.

2) Very problematic to reject proportionality in judgement in the face of texts like Luke 10:10-14; 12:47–48, not to mention those passages which speak of us being punished according to what we deserve (too many to list). Note also that proportionality is fundmental to the way in which the Old Testament penal system is constructed (see Exodus 21-23).

3) As for "sin" vs. "sins", in texts that support penal substitution, my very brief survey just now suggests the opposite of your point - plural in Leviticus 16, Isaiah 53, Romans 3:25, 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 4:10. 2 Corinthians 5:21 would seem to be the exception, but notice even there that the text limits it to we who are "in him" (viz. Christians). Same goes for Galatians 3:13 - the curse is singular, but the verse speaks specifically of Christians.

4) On Owen and Aristotle, please can we distinguish between someone using the intellectual tools of the day versus buying wholesale into Greek Philosophy. Owen, like all of the Reformed Scholastics, made use of Aristotelian method while remaining fircely critical of Aristotelian metaphysics (see Carl Trueman's scholarly treatment of this issue in The Claims of Truth ). Besides which, we are in danger of anachronism in our criticism of Owen, for the truth is that everyone at that time distinguished between different types of causes, including the Council of Trent and Owen's opponent, Richard Baxter, neither of whom subscribed to limited atonement. It was as much a given then as "biblical theology" is now. Finally, note that many of Owen's points stand quite independently of his syllogistic reasoning, so even if you were to reject that, his exegetical arguments still deserve a hearing. To dismiss him wholesale on the grounds that you disagree with one aspect of what he says, is what neo-orthodox sympathisers are always accusing Reformed thinkers of doing with Barth. Please would all sides read Owen, before dismissing him.

5) Do I believe in a universal resurrection? Yes and No. I distinguish. Clearly all will be raised to judgement (Daniel 12:1-2; John 5 etc.) But certainly not all will share in the glorious resurrection spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15, which is explicitly for those who have fallen asleep "in" Christ (cf. 1 Thess 4-5). As such it is the eschatological fulfilment of what has already begun for Christians according to Ephesians 2:1-10: we have been "made alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions". And presumably noone would suggest that this was a universal experience, shared by Christians and non-Christians alike?

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:51:00 am
Yes, and in my view the link Michael rightly points out between our participation in Christ's death and our participation in his resurrection is actually a strong argument for limited atonement (remembering of course that we're using that phrase to describe one answer to a specific question and not to suggest that there is nothing universal about Christ's death).

Paul's argument at various points is that if we share in Christ's death, we'll certainly also share in his life (e.g. Romans 6:1-11; 1 Tim. 2:11). But the context suggests that by "life" he's not referring to the resurrection of all, but specifically to the glorious resurrection of the saints - what Jesus calls "the resurrection of life" as opposed to "the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:29). Since not everyone will live with Christ in this sense, it follows that not everyone died with him.

By Chris Thomson, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:27:00 pm
Thanks for the discussion everyone, I’m soaking it in… keep going

Just to clarify a few things…

Marc Lloyd wrote:
“So is Revd ? Mr ? Dr? Professor? Dave Barrie getting rid of the P petal now too? There are surely many unquestionable perseverance of all true believers to the end texts. I reckon we could easily show that the perseverance of the saints is the Orthodox consensus throughout time. Maybe there aren’t famous names as everyone thought it?”

Actually, I prefer ‘Lord Barrie’ but if you are uncomfortable with that then ‘O Captain, my Captain’ will suffice.

I haven’t plucked the P petal yet but just said I am suspicious of it.

Marc, you suggest that perhaps the reason nobody famous wrote in support of the doctrine of ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ is because everyone already believed it. Unfortunately history does not support you here; many of the early Church Fathers explicitly addressed the issue of Christians falling away (which was happening a lot due to persecution). That a true Christian can fall away and be lost for eternity was taught by: The Epistle of Barnabas; Clement of Rome; The Shepherd of Hermas; Justin Martyr; Irenaeus; Clement of Alexandria; Tertullian; Hippolytus; Origen; and Cyprian (just to mention the first 250 years).

Marc, you also suggesed that it could be easily shown that ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ is the orthodox consensus throughout time. In that case it shouldn’t be too hard to provide a single reference from the first 1500 years of Church history, which is all I am asking for.

Chris Thomson wrote:
‘Incidentally, Turretin addresses Dave’s charge that nobody held to limited atonement until the 16th century. He cites Prosper, Augustine, Gottschalk, Fulgentius, Remigius and a Council of Valentine III in 855.’

Actually what I said was that nobody before the 16th century taught the doctrine that once somebody truly becomes a Christian they cannot fall away.

Anyway I do realise that this thread is about the L of TULIP and not the P so please forgive me for taking us off topic.

Mr Barrie : )

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:57:00 pm
Wow, this discussion really has got a little out of hand hasn't it? Forty-two posts and still going strong. Perhaps Mandy could create a few new threads that focus on particular aspects of the debate? Or would that split things up too much?

PS Still waiting for a reading of the very first verse to which I referred: 2 Peter 3.9: The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

PPS no need for THIS or *this*, when you can do this or this...

By byron smith, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:07:00 pm
Chris: Thank you for clarifying your use of terminology.

Steve, do you know how dodgy that Jaime Dickson fellow is? Be careful of him!!! [:-)] But since you have an Aussie to vouch for you, you must be a good guy.

And I like your use of headings.

Marc: HTML codes mean you don't need the * * thing; and the preview option means you can iron out typos (although I am obsessive-compulsive and typos iritate, so I use the preview button several times!)

Ros: I wouldn't agree that sin can frustrate God's purposes, nor would I agree with universalism or Arminianism! And I am very warm to your suggestions about terminology!

It's Prof Dave Barrie and Most Right Reverend Dr Michael Jensen. :-)

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:19:00 pm
Byron, what are you suggesting for 2 Peter 3:9? I'm not sure I follow why it's a problem text. Are you saying that it rules out the possibility of a sovereign decree that only some will be saved?

It would only do this if it was impossible for God to will something in one sense which he doesn't will in another sense. If that was the case, then this question would be the least of our worries!

But if the idea of God 'willing' in two ways (sovereign/decretive will vs. moral/revealed will) is new or problematic for you then I'd suggest reading John Piper's essay 'Are there two wills in God?', and the Scriptures he cites there. It's printed in the volume Still Sovereign edited by Schreiner and Ware, and also as an appendix to Piper's book The Pleasures of God.

Please keep in mind as well my point that there are "problem texts" on both sides of this question. It is not sufficient simply to raise arguments for one's own view, unless one can also refute the arguments by which others have arrived at their views (see page 327 in the John Frame book I mentioned earlier).

I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion here owing to impending exams (tomorrow and Friday). But thanks everybody for the stimulating and helpful dialogue. Once this week's over I'd be very happy to meet up with anyone who's interested in chatting more about any of this.

By Chris Thomson, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:37:00 pm
Byron (and interested others)

The classic Reformed treatment of 2 Peter 3:9 (together with Ezekiel 18:23 and 1 Timothy 2:4, viz. "God wants all to be saved" texts) is an appeal to two wills in God, a sovereign will and a moral will (or if you prefer, a decretal will and a preceptive will; or again, a secret and a revealed will). God "wants" all to be saved in the moral sense, in the same way that his will is that we are sanctified and avoid sexual immorality (1 Thessalonians 4). It is as morally wrong not to turn to his Son in faith as it is to sleep with someone other than your spouse. Both go against his will in this moral sense.

Yet according to his Sovereign will, God elects only some to salvation. It is plainly not his will that all are saved in this Sovereign sense, simply because he does not grant faith to all. To deny this is not only to reject LA but individual election too, and there are many clear texts to be sidestepped by any who would take that path - e.g. John 6:37, 44; Acts 13:48 (which are less susceptible to Barth's alternative interpretation than Ephesians 1:4–5; Romans 8:29–30).

This doctrine of ‘two wills’, though it has been scorned by some (e.g. Clark Pinnock), is, I am persuaded, necessary to account for the death of Christ. Judas’ betrayal of Christ was sinful, an act inspired by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet at the same time, Acts 2:23 makes clear that it was part of God’s ordained plan. The action was contrary to God’s moral will, but in accordance with his sovereign will. Brief reflection on the opening chapters of the book of Job leads to a similar distinction, and there are many more biblical passages that point the same way (e.g. Genesis 50:20; the other "comptabilism" texts cited by Carson in ch. 4 of A Call to Spiritual Reformation ).

There is a very readable defense of this view by John Piper, available either in the excellent essay collection Still Sovereign edited by Schreiner and Ware or as an appendix to the new and expanded edition of The Pleasures of God

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:22:00 pm
Ha ha - it seems that Chris Thomson and I think rather alike (just read his near-identical post, above). Promise they don't clone us in England these days :-)

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:24:00 pm
Well there's a lot to say! I will be only brief - only to say that of course though this is a serious discussion about serious matters and one I think conservative evangelicals need to have: it ain't personal! (What I mean is: Sachy is a champ! - and so I assume his friends I haven't yet met are too...).

1) Fair cop on the sin/s texts. That was lazy on my part. The question I was trying to ask and which I think still needs answering is: on the cross does God defeat all evil or only some of it?
2) I think the Classic Reformed response to 2 Peter 3:9 is revealing in that you have to resort to speculations about different wills... and i think that -
3) that is my chief problem with the LA position: that it seeks to rationalise biblical statements that are logically incompatible, usually according to an a priori doctrine of God worked out in abstract and not from the economy. This rationalisation tends to the speculative. The unity of the scriptural revelation is not the rational system but Christ.
4) um... I have read John Owen, I though his exegesis was contorted and very unconvincing - because he was proceeding with philosophical assumptions with which he had begun.

By michael jensen, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:51:00 pm
Something I don't think anyone has commented on in discussing 2 Peter 3.9 is the referent of God's patience and his wishing that none should perish:

"The Lord... is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance."

Is it not the case that Peter is talking about the church, "beloved" Christians, namely elect believers? God does not want any such to perish but that all who are such should reach repentance.

By Daniel Newman, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:42:00 pm
Thank you Prof Mr Dr (My?) Captain Barrie and (Arch? X2?) Bishop Jensen et. al. for the historical references, the blogging tips etc.

I agree we LA boys ought to get to work on the historical consenus examples for L & P, though I imagine Carl Truman and Garry Williams have it all at their finger tips so I'm going to wait and see if they come up with the goods before bothering to attempt any work on it.

Yes, sorry for all the typos. I blame them on the gift of dyslexia and laziness etc.

Michael, could I buy you a pint in Oxford or London some time?

By Marc Lloyd, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:26:00 pm
A pint? my word yes!

By michael jensen, at Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:31:00 pm
Interested that the biblico-theological arguments for powerful-atonement haven't been discussed. Just to remind folks:

Q. what are some of the key OT types of Christ?

A. High Priest, Davidic King, Son of Man

Q. for whom does the HP work?

A. the HP works (atones and intercedes) for Israel rather than for, say, Canaanites

Q. for whom does the Davidic King win his victories?

A. for Israel rather than for, say, the Philistines

Q. for whom does the SM receive a kingdom?

A. for the saints of the most high rather than for, say, the beasts

Q. Does the fact that these figures do their work for the people of God mean that God's love is not expansive etc?

A. No

Q. But surely Canaanites, Philistines and beasts could become Israelites and thus the saving work of the Christ-figures wd have been for them too?

A. Sure, but still the HP, DK, and SM did not do their work for non-Israel qua non-Israel.

Q. why is this relevant?

A. because we all love incorporative messiahship, union with Christ, penal substitution, biblical theology.

This just by way of reminder.

Blessings

David

By DavidF, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:11:00 am
I don't have the text in front of me, but could you say the same thing about the Passover in Exodus 12? Not only is there proportionally enough lamb for each household (so that each household has what it needs), but there is only enough lamb for each household. There is to be none left over. Any that is is burned up. Atonement is for those who are being saved, and only for those who are being saved.

Someone told me that Alec Motyer thought that the Passover taught "L", but I don't know where. I don't think it's in his new commentary on Exodus.

By Daniel Newman, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:15:00 am
On the subject of...
Limited Atonement and 'Aristotelian' Logic

I believe in the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, etc.

And I also believe in the eternity of the world.

Do those nasty Aristotelian, 'Scholastic' Christians at Oak Hill really believe the same things as me?

I hope they're not just nicking the bits they happen to like...

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:24:00 am
um.

I don't get it.

I am Australian, so you can't be ironic with me...

By michael jensen, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:11:00 am
I've been unable to get a couple of things out of my head... here goes...

(1) LA-people are accused of starting with a doctrine of God and determining their soteriology on this basis. Here is Michael Jensen, for example:
'the whole problem is that this type of Calvinism STARTS with a philosophically determined doctrine of God...'

(2) But UA-people often tdo the same thing. Here is Byron, from the very first comment on this blog, explaining what LA loses:
'A God whose love is expansive, and not limited to the few.'

Is it not possible that all of us make connections between theological loci, deducing one doctrine (in part) on the basis of another, and that this is, in fact, a jolly good idea? For example, all of us reason like this:
(i) God is the holy creator (picture 1)
and
(ii) all people have sinned (picture 2)
therefore
(iii) all people deserve punishment (picture 3).

When we find (iii) taught explicitly in Scripture, it serves to validate, not undermine, such logical reasoning.

Maybe that's what Aristotle is rambling on about: the use of logic (such as the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle etc) is regarded by LA-people as good, whereas the eternity of the world (entailing as it does a denial of the doctrine of creation) is regarded by them as untrue. Some of Aristotle's philosophy is right; some is wrong.

Thoughts?

S

PS
Great to hear your (cyber-)voice, Jaime... :-)

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:41:00 am
Ha ha - it seems that Andrew Sach and I think rather alike (just read his near-identical post, above). Promise they don't clone us in England these days :-)

By Chris Thomson, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:23:00 am
I 'started' my response with a God whose love is expansive, but that is not the start of my theology. 'Fraid my first post came in half-way through my systematics (I'm working on it - it's scattered in bits and pieces around the Blogosphere: you've got to go and find it all...). Hint: you can also go here and hassle me on some other topics.

DavidF: Interesting point about the biblical theology. For me, it was a genuinely new thought. Thanks. However, the covenant with Abraham (upon which each of these roles is based) is global (avoiding the 'u' word) in its intended scope (Gen 12.3, etc). Now sure this can be read as distributively general (i.e. in you, some of each of the families of the earth will be blessed), nonetheless, my point is that these roles take their place within a covenant that was not confined to Israel. Each of the specific roles has positive implications beyond Israel.

(a) The Son of Man: To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. (However, I think the Son of Man in Dan 7 is first and foremost Israel herself, rather than a Messianic figure (see Dan 7.22,27), though the representative role of the Messiah makes this a fuzzy point.)

(b) The Davidic King is to rule over the other nations, not just make them all Israelites: Ps 2; Zech 9.9-10.

(c) The High Priest serves in a temple that is to a house of prayer for all nations.

(d) Prophet (just to expand this discussion into the 3rd traditional OT christological type): Jonah preached repentence, not Israelification, to the Ninevite gentiles.

2 Peter 3.9: Thanks Sachy and ChrisT - (though perhaps rejected Christ isn't as bad as sleeping with your neighbour's wife (or husband). It's worse?) Sometimes such distinctions as this are a helpful way of trying to grasp the various shades of meaning in apparently conflicting passages. And this distinction between two divine wills has a long history. But it's important to get on the table that we all think God wants things that don't happen. We also all think (I think) that God uses human evil to being about his good plans (Gen 50.20; Acts 2.23). However, I guess one thing I'm wondering is: does all evil fall into this category? Will all evil (without exception, for those who have grown used to reading the word otherwise...:-)) one day be seen as the dark threads in God's glorious tapestry? Is all evil to be understood as God's instrument? Or is it his enemy? This is a false either-or, I know. But as a matter of emphasis: is it his instrument, which he will eventually throw away (or keep locked in the cupboard, or 'outside' in outer darkness), or is it his enemy, which in his powerful grace he sometimes judo flips to fall where he wants?

By byron smith, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:28:00 am
OK, I know I said you'd heard the last from me but I couldn't let this very significant statement from Michael pass by without comment:

I think the Classic Reformed response to 2 Peter 3:9 is revealing in that you have to resort to speculations about different wills

Note the language of 'resort' and 'speculations'. Is it conceivably possible, as an alternative, that Scripture might actually speak of God's 'will' in more than one sense, and that Reformed theologians might simply be trying to be faithful to what they see in Scripture?

Is it possible that some of the Arminian and Amyraldian arguments in fact depend on an a priori belief that God cannot 'will' in different ways, or that he cannot 'will' two apparently conflicting things at once?

If not, where is the Scriptual evidence for this massive presupposition?

This illustrates my point about the way that the 'anti-scholastic' (for want of a better term) side tends to argue. They claim to be 'just reading the Bible' without any presuppositions. But I can't help wondering whether they're just less upfront about what those presuppositions are.

As an aside, it always puzzles me that this 'argument' against the two wills gets used by open theists and others who accuse us of 'limiting' God, since it seems to require us to believe that God's emotional life is less complex than that of most humans.

By Chris Thomson, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:55:00 pm
Oh the comments by Drs Sach, Jeffrey and Field here are just outstanding.

Mr Thomposn deserves to be created DD(Oxon) for his contributions to this blog alone and appoined Ajunct Professor of Reformed Theology at Moore College.

By the way, are there any plans for the *Reformed* Theological Review to change its name, does anyone know? Evangelical or Lutheran or Sydney or B. Knox Memorial might be more accurate adjectives?

As well as Dr Trueman's work (on Owen and Protestant Scholasticism) hasn't Professor Richard Muller (Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics etc) absolutely killed many of the methodological, hermeneutical, philosophical, historical and even exegetcial errors being mouthed here? At Oak Hill many of the 1st years wrote on "Protestant Scholasticism: Zenith or Nadir of Reformed Thought?". PS was basically a jolly good thing. Would any of the Oak Hill boys be able to link to their essays, please? Dr Williams suggested maybe yours, Sachy or Jeffery, would help us?

Even Professor Paul Helm's classic on Calvin againts the Calvinists would help us here, would'nt ut?

PS Presumably when the exams are over, some of you will be able to devote your energies full time to this vitally important discussion?

By Marc Lloyd, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:24:00 pm
To byron, on the use of logical reasoning

Brother, I hear what you're saying. I merely noted the following:

In response to Mandy's question, 'What, if anything, do I lose by concluding that the atonement is limited to the elect only?' (M's original blog) you replied, 'A God whose love is expansive, and not limited to the few' (first comment).

By so-doing, you revealed (a) that you believe that God's love is expansive and not limited to a few; and (b) that you believe that this doctrine of God would be compromised by a doctrine of limited atonement.

In effect, therefore, you had 'reasoned' from your doctrine of God, deducing logically that certain doctrines of salvation (including Limited Atonement) are unacceptable.

My point is this: Such logical reasoning is a perfectly good and valid, indeed unavoidable, thing to do. It is unacceptable, therefore, to criticise any doctrine merely for relying on such logic, as if such reliance were a problem. It is not. I did not mean to imply that you yourself had criticised such reasoning. But it seems to me that Michael Jensen did. Forgive me, MJ, if this is a misunderstanding.

As it happens, I believe that your original premise needs nuancing (e.g. in what sense is God's love 'expansive', given that the Bible declares that in some sense God hates sinners [Pss 1-50]?). In other words, I think that you used logic to reason from an insufficiently-clearly distinguished premise, and thereby reached a false conclusion. But your intention to reason logically from one doctrine to another is perfectly right.

One might go further, and point out that we could learn a lot from the Reformed Scholastics (e.g. Turretin, Beza, Owen), since they understood formal logic very well indeed, having learned it from (gasp!) Aristotle (among others). They also understood very well the importance of distinguishing the precise nature of the question before attempting to answer it. Check out the first couple of pages of any section in Turretin, Elenctic Theology.

It saddens and surprises me that these great guys (T, B, O, and their modern counterparts, Richard Muller, etc) are sometimes dismissed on the grounds that they are 'Scholastic'; as far as I can see this is a good reason to listen to them very carefully.

Cheers!

S

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:11:00 pm
We at Oak Hill should just say how much we love the Jensens and Moore College and B. Knox and Professor Peterson. We owe so much to John Chapman and friends.

But it seems we have been reading different books for the last few years?

You are getting more deeply into Barth.

We are more in love with Edwards, Owen, Augustine, Acquinas - even!

I'm sorry if the rhetoric volume of my posts has been too high at times: I didn't mean to be rude or offensive or cause a brother to stumble.

By the way, I understand that Professor Paul Helm's reply to James Torrance in their exchange might especially hlep us.

Who are the authors and what are the books you guys are excited about in all this?

By Marc Lloyd, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:56:00 am
Just read Marc's post and so now don't have to come to a defence of RTR as not being a MTC publication anyway (granted MTC lecturers do make lots of contributions and PFJ is one of the editors) and to distinguish (see I have learnt something) between views posted here and what is taught by the faculty as a whole at MTC.

But as to what I've read, yes, I've read a bit of Barth and am a fan of Gunton on the whole, although I don't agree with all he says about atonement.

By Mandy, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:16:00 am
Hey, Doctrine of Salvation exam was this morning. Guess what? Limited Atonement came up! Thanks everyone for the help with revision. I'm guessing that Mandy did that question too?!
-----
Wanted to add my note of appreciation for many things Australian, not to mention many members of current Moore College faculty who were a great help to me while I was with you. PTO'B and Barry Webb in particular remain two of the nicest people I have ever met :-)
-----
Byron suggests that the OT types may not be quite as "particular" in scope as DavidF had suggested:

The Davidic King is to rule over the other nations, not just make them all Israelites: Ps 2; Zech 9.9-10.

I just looked up both of the texts cited, and it occurred to me that there are two different senses in which his kingship might be universal, neither of which overturns DavidF's point that his blessings come to his people only and not to those outside

1) On Psalm 2, God's annointed is given univeral rule. But this is experienced as a blessing only by those who submit willingly to his kingship. Others he will "dash .. to pieces like pottery" (v. 9). Thus within the universality of kingship, there is a still distinction: loyal subjects vs. rebels.

When we apply this to Christ as antitype, we would affirm that his rule is universal; he has been made "Lord and Christ" even over those who have rejected him (e.g. Acts 2:36). Yet his kingship will not be experienced as a blessing by all. Some will call on the rocks to fall on them to shield them from his wrath. Only those who have become citizens of his kindgom enjoy its blessings. Particularity is retained.

2) On Zechariah 9:9-10, it seems that what is in view is the extension of the Messiah's kingdom, as peace is proclaimed among the nations. This does not elimate the insider/outsider distinction; it merely means that more people (especially if you want to go postmill), or perhaps a greater diversity of people, viz. different nations, cross over to be insiders. It is not universal but expansive.

When we apply this to Christ as the antitype, we would of course think of the Gentile mission, the preaching of the gospel to the nations, the expectation of a great multitude from every tribe and language and people and nation. But this does not at all argue against LA. It is still possible to say that Christ died only for his elect; we just need to add that there are a lot of us, and from all kinds of different places.

Hmm. I suspect that all I have just said was already encapsulated by DavidF's one-liner,

but still the HP, DK, and SM did not do their work for non-Israel qua non-Israel

Mind you, it's probably just as well that I'm not as concise as that, otherwise my answers for tomorrow's Puritans exam would be embarrasingly short. All I know on the subject is expressable in frighteningly few words. Better stop blogging and do some more revision...

By Anonymous, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:00:00 am
Marc Lloyd:"Michael, could I buy you a pint in Oxford or London some time?

michael jensen said... "A pint? my word yes!"
----------------------------
I hesitated to make the offer for fear of making a theological student stumble.

But no more!

I offer 1 pint at the Cock & Dragon to any students who want to continue this discussion face to face upon completion of their exams. (Oh and Tony if you're reading this i'll be paying for it with my own funds not petty cash).

Celal
the Oak Hill bean counter

By Celal Birader, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:05:00 am
Note: what I said is (or what I meant is) - LA position starts with an abstractly drawn doctrine of God that depends on certain philosophy instead of working the doctrine of God out from the gospel of Jesus... Just check out where those 17th century guys tend to begin their dogmatic works...

(Please don't throw Mr Muller's weighty tomes back at me!)
The point about Aristotle is this:
I am sure you would say of Aquinas that his Aristotelianism was more than problematic for his entire theological programme (as you would of Augustine and neo-platonism). The Reformation was fought partly to rid theology of A's influence...there is nary a positive mention of him in Calvin! So why was his influence allowed to creep back in? I think you will find far more of him in Owen (for example) than merely a simple use of the law of non-cons... his whole system depends on it. That is why he has to resort to such odd exegesis.

By michael jensen, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:09:00 am
Michael said, "LA position starts with an abstractly drawn doctrine of God that depends on certain philosophy instead of working the doctrine of God out from the gospel of Jesus ..."

Funnily enough, I think my belief in LA (aka atonement-that-really-saves) starts on the first page of the NT with the one word: "Jesus" as explained in Matthew 1.21.

And, yes, Andrew Sach, you're right that my comment about "qua non-Israel" had already taken into account the subsequent criticism. As it does with the obvious but wrong response to the use of Matt 1.21.

And, yes, Andrew Sach, you're right that revision for the Puritans exam would be a great use of time.

Blessings

David

By DavidF, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:34:00 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Marc Lloyd, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:29:00 am
PS - obviously I accept your kind offer of a pint. Will anyone join us from Oxford or fly in from Moore T C for it, I wonder?

By Marc Lloyd, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:30:00 am
And I'm sure you've all thought of this but "I lay down my life for the sheep" in the context of John 1o seems to teach limited atonment very clearly.

On its own the text does not require it. Christ could say that and still die for the sheep and also for unmentioned others.

But the context of the drama proves the atonement is limited. It is hard to see a sensible or significant way in which the shepherd can be said to lay down his life for the wolves, hirlings, theives, robbers and not-my-sheep-ones against whom he defends the sheep. Thus the atonment is not universal: it is, as it were, against not for the enemies of Christ.

I do not think this presses the parabolic or allagorical sense too far. Christ seems to be speaking in a pretty much more or less this equals that way.

This point that the enemies die and are not died for is obvious from all the conflict stuff in the Bible, as David Field's material also suggests.

A Christus Victor (Christ defeats his enemies - cosmic and otherwise - by his cross) model of the atonement thus teaches Limited Atonement, much to the surprise of Chalke et. al.

By Marc Lloyd, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:55:00 am
The "let's throw the whole argument out because Owen is fatally dependent on Aristotle" thing is a getting a bit waring for the reasons that

a) Owen is not fatally dependent on Aristotle, at least according to the best recent scholarship. Michael, I'm sorry but I think it's unfair of you to make this blanket assertion and then ask that we don't refer you to the foremost academic authority on the matter, viz. Richard Muller (or Carl Trueman). You need to answer him.

b) There have been a good number of arguments in favour of LA on this blog, and none of them depends at all on Aristotelian metaphysics, so far as I can see. Chris Thomson enumerates 5 in his post that begins "Andy, your question is fair". So far I don't think any of those specific arguments has been countered. Neither has DavidF's typology point. If the debate is to move forward, then this is really where the opponents of LA need to concentrate their fire. Unless of course they find the case unanswerable.

I don't mean that glibly or unkindly. Like Mandy, I was not signed up to LA when I began college. But the case outlined here now seems to me pretty strong

Anyone?

By Anonymous, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:00:00 am
A few comments:

1) Limited atonement is a response to an 'all or not all' question about the atonement. It seems to me that this is a bogus question.

2) It also seems to me that Calvin would have regarded this as a bogus question. The fact that, despite the amount that he wrote on the subject, no consensus can be reached on whether or not he held LA seems to serve as evidence for this position. It seems to me that we are the ones imposing this alien question onto Calvin.

3) I agree with Bavinck and Berkouwer in their claim that Dordt was not responding to an 'all or not all' question in its doctrine of the atonement. Dordt was opposing a 'possibility-realization' model of the atonement. It taught a doctrine of efficacious atonement. It did not necessarily teach a doctrine of limited atonement.

4) Plenty of smart theologians do not accept the claim that an efficacious atonement must be a limited one (Lutherans, for example). Such people reject both Arminian and TULIPist doctrines of atonement.

5) It seems to me that LA arises in large part out of an individualistic understanding of the atonement and of God's plan of salvation. We presume that if Christ died for anyone He must have died for a particular collection of individuals. Individuals must be the direct object of Christ’s atonement. Given such assumptions the ‘all or not all’ dilemma is an obvious one. However, if we conceive of salvation in more ecclesial categories and recognize that individuals are not the direct object of the atonement, but come to participate in the blessings of the atonement through their membership in the body of Christ, the ‘all or not all’ dilemma seems quite mistaken.

The doctrine of limited atonement seems to arise, in large part, because of the loss of participatory and ecclesial categories in our soteriology. Atomize soteriology into the saving of lots of detached individuals and something like limited atonement or the Arminian alternative will seem inevitable.

6) Some might argue that for a 'limited atonement' with Israel or the Church being the direct object, with individuals the indirect objects as they come to participate in the body. I would not really disagree with such an understanding in principle. I would just point out that this is a relatively novel way of understanding what it means for the atonement to be 'limited' and is not really the same as the common Reformed position under that name (at least not in my reading).

7) It seems to me that LA generally abstracts the cross from its place in redemptive history. What sins were the ones that Christ was punished for? The Bible nowhere claims that the sins that Christ died for were the sins of the elect throughout history.

The biblical picture of Christ's death focuses more upon the death of Christ as that which deals with Sin (with a capital S) than it does upon the death of Christ as that which deals with the punishment due to the discrete sins of particular individuals. When the Bible does focus on particular sins being dealt with through the cross of Christ, it is the sins of Israel that take central focus.

Christ dies ‘for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant’ (i.e. the covenant made with Israel under Moses — Hebrews 9:15). Christ dies so that the sins and lawless deeds of the houses of Israel and Judah might be remembered no more (Hebrews 8:8-12). Christ dies for the nation of Israel so that the nation would not have to die (John 11:50-52). Those Jews who did not come under Christ would suffer the condemnation that lay over the whole world order (not just the condemnation that lay over Israel's own sins, cf. Luke 11:49-51). The Law had imputed the sins of the whole world order to Israel.

Christ did not die primarily for the detached sins of detached individuals. This is simply an unhelpful way of thinking about it. Rather, His death was the sentence cast over a whole world order. The sentence of death that Christ suffered was not a certain amount of suffering due to a certain number of sins, but a definitive and final judgment cast over the personal solidarity of the human race. Christ died as the King of the Jews — the One who summed up the nation in Himself. He brought the nation and the old world order down to death. The nation of Israel was raised and reformed around the resurrected Christ on the Day of Pentecost.

If we are to establish the identity of those for whom Christ died it seems to me that we will have to pay a lot more attention to the historical situation of the cross. Christ dies as the One summing up the priestly nation in Himself. He dies as the representative of the whole old world order.

8) Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Israel and for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). He provides blood covering for the whole world, a place where the whole world can enjoy restored fellowship with God. However, to be safe from divine judgment the world must be brought under the blood covering. Outside of Christ there is no covering for sins. The Church is the new world, covered by the blood of Christ.

Understood this way, the atonement is limited to those 'in Christ'. However, it is possible for people to fall away from Christ and possible for people once estranged from Christ to come to Him. 'Those in Christ' is a continuously changing group of people.

In principle no one is excluded from the blessing of the atonement.

9) Throughout God is sovereign in bringing particular people to participate in the blessing of the atonement. However, no individual is the direct object of Christ's atoning work.

10) Christ does not die for particular sins of particular people in a piecemeal fashion as many forms of LA seem to suggest. The evidence of the NT seems to point to Christ's dying for the sins of the nation of Israel and in order to condemn 'Sin' in His flesh. The 'Forgiveness of Sins' that the cross brings about is not primarily a private blessing, but inseparably connected with the restoration of Israel as a people. The individualistic framework of LA simply does not do justice to the cosmic dimension of the work of Christ and cannot carry the weight of such biblical language as that which states that Christ died to 'do away with' the 'body of sin'.

11) It seems to me that a biblical-theological account of the role of the Torah in imputing sins to the priestly nation of Israel so that they could be finally dealt with by Christ is a far better way to do justice to the NT doctrine of atonement than that provided by LA. The more that I study my Bible the more I feel dissatisfied by the doctrine of LA, which seems abstract and speculative.

By Al, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:46:00 am
As regards the various comments that refer to John 10 and other such passages, I think that it is important to contextualize the claims that are made within a broader Johannine picture. The following are some comments I made in another context, that are relevant to some of the comments that others have made above:

Everyone who genuinely comes to Christ comes because the Father has given that person to Christ. They are given by means of the Father's sovereign work in drawing the person, not because the Father foresaw the person's own individual decision (as an Arminian would generally claim). Christ will not turn away or cast out any who are given to Him by the Father. All of those who have been entrusted to His care by the Father — head for head — will be raised up on the last day. Christ is the good Shepherd. He lays down His life for the sheep. He will not allow anyone to snatch the sheep from His hands. He will go off in search of the wanderer in order to bring that one back to Himself. Even when the sheep are to be scattered, He will pray for those entrusted to His care that their faith would not fail.

These words teach us that, as long as our lives are in Christ's hands, we are as safe as we could be. However, these verses are part of a bigger picture in which the Father does not merely give people into the care of His Son but also removes people from the care of His Son. The teaching of John 6:37ff often seems to be held at the expense of the teaching of such passages as John 15:1ff.

John 15:1-2 teaches us that the Father (the vinedresser) takes away from Christ (the vine) branches that consistently fail to bear fruit. I believe that the Father is patient in this process and generally waits for some time before removing a branch. The Father is the One who entrusts people to His Son; the Father is also the One who removes people from His Son's care. Christ does not lose anyone who has been entrusted to Him by the Father. No one snatches these people from the Son's hands. It is not the Father's will that any person He has entrusted to the Son should be lost and the Son does not fail to fulfil this. He guards, preserves and prays for all of those who have been given to Him by the Father. However, the fact that the Father can remove people from Christ's care should never be forgotten. It is not Christ who removes people from the vine, but the Father, the vinedresser.

It is the Father who gives people to Christ (not the people themselves); it is the Father who removes people from Christ (not the people themselves, Christ or any hostile power). As long as the Father wills for someone to remain in Christ's care that person will be kept in safety. However, such care can never be presumed upon as the Father has the prerogative to remove people from this care.

We see the same thing in passages such as Romans 8:39. No created power can separate us from the love of God in Christ. None of the hostile powers that might seek to wrest us from God's love in Christ can ever succeed. The worst acts of Satan and our own wicked hearts cannot even achieve this. God continues to pursue us by His love in Christ even when we seek to escape it.

However, God will not pursue us for ever. There comes a time when God says 'enough is enough' and leaves us to the terrible fate that we are determined to rush towards. His Spirit will no longer put up any resistance in trying to bring us back to the truth. Yes, no 'created thing' can separate us from God's love in Christ. God the Father, though, is no 'created thing'. He has the prerogative to cast us away from His presence. God does not cast people away in a capricious and unexpected manner. God the Father only casts away people who persist in unbelief over a period of time and continue to resist His calling.

I believe that the Johannine picture of election is far more complex than that which many Reformed people hold. As Peter Leithart points out, the Johannine picture of election is one in which apostates are just as chosen as anyone else. The Johannine doctrine of election is one in which Judas is just as much one 'given' to Jesus by the Father as John himself is (John 17:12).

I suggest that this fact simply hasn't been given enough weight by those who use John to support common understandings of limited atonement.

By Al, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:29:00 am
Yes, count me in for a pint at the C&D anytime after July 20!

Meantime, if any of you MTC folks fancy going for a schooie at the Marly, let me know. I may be an unbiblical, non-evangelizing, proud hypercalvinist who doesn't believe in a God of love and enjoys finding creative ways of excluding people from the Kingdom by doing cosmetic surgery on the Greek (and I think you forgot to mention that I also eat babies). But I hope we can still be friends. :-)

By Chris Thomson, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:12:00 pm
Might I make another quick contribution? I've just looked through the comments so far (I have marking and report-writing to avoid!) and am struck at the absence of arguments for universal "atonement" (aka weak atonement, or only-does-half-the-job atonement, or doesn't-quite-work atonement).

That is, the "limited" atonement position appears to have been on the back foot in this discussion and yet, when it boils down to it, the arguments for universal "atonement" (rather than against "limited" atonement) amount to
a) God's nicer than "limited" atonement (though not nice enough to save everybody or, for Arminians, to not-create those whom he foresaw wd perish)
b) the Bible says "all", "world", "every".

And since those arguments don't work, I wonder why someone is left wanting to believe in universal "atonement"?

Blessings

David

By DavidF, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 4:38:00 pm
I said:
Each of the specific roles has positive implications beyond Israel.
I think this still stands, even granted further qualifications of the royal role Sachy suggested.

What I do find interesting about this discussion is the assumed place of sin/evil by the respective positions. Is it primarily God's instrument or enemy? I've included some further thoughts here for those who might want to pursue this tangent.

Love to hear some responses to Alistair's posts.

I'd love to take up the pint offers if you'll pick up the transport tab too...

By byron smith, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:09:00 pm
Here's a wonderful hymn on limited atonement.

Good theology leads to thanks and praise. This, from Augustus Toplady in 1772, is a devotional response to the genuinely substitutionary character of Christ's atoning death.

Try reading it out loud, and I'm afraid I don't know a tune:

From whence this fear and unbelief?
Hath not the Father put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
And will the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin,
Which, Lord, was charged on Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate'er Thy people owed:
How then can wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in Thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with Thy blood.

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine:
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, My soul, unto thy rest!
The merits of thy great High Priest
Have bought thy liberty:
Trust in His efficaceous blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:12:00 pm
Interesting stuff. Nothing to add but a great Barth quote: 'Hostility against scholasticism is the mark of the false prophet. The true prophet would not shy away from submitting also to this test.'!!! (Cited in Asselt/Dekker, p20 & DF lecture)

By Anonymous, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:22:00 pm
L and P seem to have gone. Does anyone want to have a go at T, U and I as well?

By Daniel Newman, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:28:00 pm
Not so fast Byron!! David's right. So before we respond to Alastair's post how about an answer to the objections already raised against universal atonement? I'll summarise them here for ease of reference (slightly expanded in some cases):

1. John 10:14-15 - does Jesus lay down his life for the sheep, or for everybody?

2. Acts 20:28 - did God buy the church with his blood, or everybody?

3. Ephesians 5:25-6 - did Christ give himself up for the church to make her holy, or for everybody?

4. Revelation 5:9 - did Christ purchase with his blood people from every tribe and language and people and nation, or did he purchase everybody?

5. Romans 8:32 - does Paul think it's possible that God might give his son up for someone and not give him all things, including eternal life?

6. Matthew 1:21 - does Jesus save his people from their sins, or just make them 'savable'?

7. Romans 3:25 - does Jesus' death actually propitiate the Father's wrath, or just make it possible for him to be propitiated?

8. 1 Peter 3:18 - did Jesus die to bring us to God, or just to make it possible for us to come to God?

9. If Jesus died for everybody, to save them (Matthew 1:21), to redeem and purify them (Titus 2:14), to bring them to God (1 Peter 3:18) etc., then why didn't those things happen? What was lacking?

10. (Antipating the obvious comeback) If it was our faith that was lacking, how come Jesus' death didn't deal with people's unbelief along with all their other sins?

11. If Christ bore everybody's sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24), how can God justly punish anybody for their sins?

12. Why would God send his Son to die for everybody yet only elect some to benefit from his death?

13. Why does Jesus not pray for all if he was dying for all (John 17:9)?

14. Romans 6:1-14/2 Tim 2:11 - How can we have a share in Christ's death and not in his life?

I might have missed one or two but these will do for starters.

By Chris Thomson, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:28:00 pm
Alastair

No-one here thinks that Jesus died for 'detached individuals'. He died for 'the Jewish nation and not only that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.' (John 11:51-52).

In other words, he died for the church, jointly and severally. That is, he 'gave himself for us' (Titus 2:14). But as a member of the church 'he also loved me and gave himself for me' (Gal. 2:20). The question is not whether he died for individuals or a people (a false dichotomy, in my view), but whether he died in this same way for anyone outside his elect people?

As for John's gospel, I agree that context is key. But the context sees Jesus' mission focussed on specific people given by the Father to the Son. I've already mentioned the 'high priestly prayer' in John 17. But there's also John 6:38-39:

'I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.'

How do you read this in a way that suggests that Jesus came to die for people who would be lost?

And please can you explain how an efficacious atonement can be a universal one?

By Chris Thomson, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:58:00 pm
Would someone like to have a go at T, U or I as well?

I thought that 'I' had gone right from the start with this comment in the first response to Mandy's post:

A sense of the senselessness of sin, that it can reject the grace of God.

Rejectable grace? Not irresistable then.

By Ros, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:38:00 pm
A few further points, particularly in response to comments from David Field and others (including some that are posted on David's blog).

1) The claim that the limited character of the atonement is that Christ died for the Church and Israel in a way that He did not die for others is relatively unobjectionable to most of the opponents of limited atonement that I have encountered. The distinctive character of the doctrine of LA that makes it so objectionable is not to be found here.

2) It seems to me that the position that has historically been held and opposed as limited atonement is a view that teaches that Christ died for an eternally fixed and unchanging group of individuals and not for others. Even where there might be an appreciation of the corporate character of the solidarities for which Christ dies, the solidarities are generally reduced to sums of particular individuals, through the doctrine of election.

Dying for a personal solidarity is not the same thing as dying for a particular exclusive set of individuals. A personal solidarity can persist even when new individuals are added to it, or old individuals are removed. To say that Christ 'died for the elect' is not synonymous with the claim that Christ died for the Church, unless you are understanding the term 'elect' in its NT ecclesial and historical sense, rather than in the traditional Reformed individual and eternal sense.

If Christ dies for the personal solidarity of the Church, particular individuals need not be the direct and immediate objects of Christ's atonement. There are some within the body of Christ who will leave it and there are some outside the body of Christ who will join it.

3) But surely the fact that God is sovereign over the particular individuals that come to be in Christ means that Christ died for them rather than any others? Yes and no. Here we must clarify. Each person who is brought into Christ and sprinkled by His blood is loved personally by God. Each has been given a peculiar privilege that has not been extended to others.

However, within the Reformed tradition there is a tendency to go further than this. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that God in His sovereign grace saves person A, without saving persons B, C and D, it is not legitimate to argue from this that God's purpose is to save A, rather than B, C and D. God's purpose is to form a new humanity in His Son. This purpose could be achieved in many different ways. God could save B, C and D, rather than A and achieve His purpose by that route. There is nothing about my salvation that makes it essential to God's purpose. The marvellous character of God's grace to me is seen more clearly when we realize that He could have achieved His purpose without me. I fear that the Reformed doctrine of election tends to be far too anthropocentric at this point.

The position that I hold is that God has determined to form a new humanity through the death and resurrection of His Son. In His grace God has brought me into this new humanity, showing His love to me. I can say that Christ died for me. However, I do not mean by that that Christ's purpose in going to the cross was to save me rather than Joe Bloggs. I am not the direct object of God's saving purpose in a manner that would make me indispensible to its outworking.

God is seeking to form a family. If you are to form a family you must love members of the family in a particular and not merely a generic manner. Every person adopted into God's family is loved personally and has been sprinkled with Christ's blood personally. However, a family is not the mere sum of its parts. There is nothing about God's purpose to form a family that necessitates that it be constituted by certain individuals rather than others.

The fact that God's love to those adopted into His family is particular and personal does not imply that God's family-building purpose itself is bound to those particular individuals. God can cast out rebellious children and adopt others in. God can cast out the sons of the kingdom and raise up children for Abraham from the stones. This, it seems to me, is what Reformed doctrines of election and limited atonement generally fail to appreciate.

4) It also seems to me that there are broader dimensions to the atonement that justify talk of 'universal atonement'. Christ deals with the entire entail of Adam's sin and not just the private sins of the elect. The universal aspect of Christ's work can thus be compared to the universal aspect of Adam's sin. Calvin writes in his commentary on Romans 5:18:

"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

It seems to me that this is a good expression of the position held by most evangelicals who disagree with limited atonement.

By Christ's blood God reconciles the whole world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). It is a whole world that is reconciled to God, not merely rescued fragments of an old world. It is a new creation that is being formed in Christ and not merely a recovery and repristination of some shards of the shattered old creation.

Through the death of Christ God is bringing His original plans for creation and humanity to completion. The death of Christ is thus truly cosmic and universal in its scope. In the death of Christ all things, whether on earth or in heaven, are reconciled to God (Colossians 1:20).

In Christ we see the formation of a new humanity and a new creation. I don't believe that the concept of LA really does justice to the scope of Christ's work.

The Scripture also teaches us that Christ died and rose again 'that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living' (Romans 14:9). I don't believe that LA takes this into enough account. The death of Christ establishes a new world order. Satan is cast out of heaven by the blood of Christ and the whole world is reconciled to God. The hostile powers no longer hold authority but are called to submit to the One who has inherited all through His death and resurrection.

The message that 'Christ died for you' is an important part of the gospel message. Through His death and resurrection Christ gained Lordship over all creation. To tell someone that Christ died for them is to inform them of that fact and to call them to respond to the Gospel of Christ's Lordship with the obedience of faith. This is the clear message of 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.

Christ died to become Lord of all, to establish the new creation and reconcile the whole world to God. In the preaching of the Gospel we call people to submit to the One who is their true Lord and be reconciled to God in Him. Those who are reconciled to God will be spared from the coming judgment on the rebellious powers.

By Al, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:05:00 pm
Excuse me, but some questions:

1. How can you reconcile people leaving the body of Christ with verses like John 6:39?

2. Did the good shepherd really lay down his life for the goats?

3. Does God not really have purposes for each of person A, B, C, and D? If not, what do verses like Psalm 57:2, Psalm 139:16, Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:11-13 (note the contrast in 'we' and 'you')?

Thank you for your time.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:33:00 pm
Alastair, thanks for taking the time to summarize your views. Some comments/questions:

On (1). Really? To say that Christ bore the penalty for the sins of his people but didn’t do so for others (even though, in some respects his death has reference to them) is acceptable to people who deny effectual atonement?

On (2) I may be misreading you, if so forgive me, but it seems to me that you’re unnecessarily dichotomizing corporate and personal categories, and reifying the corporate. I’m not sure that a personal solidarity can exist in the abstract, that is, without reference to the various individuals who make it up. That is, there is no such thing as “the Church” abstracted from the individuals who make up the church.

I don’t see how one can’t hold both to the corporate – Christ’s death casting a shadow over the whole old world order, bearing the curse of exile, conquering the principalities and powers, etc. – and the individual – Christ’s death delivering individuals from their sins, the judgment of God, etc. Now, one might wish to argue (as I do) that some benefit in a redemptive sense from Christ’s death through baptism, even though they don’t ultimately persevere. But this doesn’t mean that God has not intentioned in the atonement ultimately to save the elect (as traditionally understood) in a way that he’s not intended to save those who for a while, through baptism belong to the body of his Son, but later fall in the wilderness.

Regarding a classical doctrine of effectual atonement, the Reformed Orthodox tend to structure their doctrine of accomplishment and application of the atonement around union with Christ, which seems to me, in large part, to deal with your fears. The elect are never viewed by God in a way that’s abstracted from Christ.

On (3) , you write “Whilst it is undoubtedly true that God in His sovereign grace saves person A, without saving persons B, C and D, it is not legitimate to argue from this that God's purpose is to save A, rather than B, C and D. God's purpose is to form a new humanity in His Son.”

Why the dichotomy? Why is it wrong to say that God’s purpose is to form a new humanity in his Son, and that therefore, his purpose is to save A, rather than B, C, and D. Actually, as a postmill, I’d want to say that his purpose is to save A, B, C……YY, and not ZZ!, which begins to give an answer to questions of the salvation of the world, the formation of a new humanity, the salvation of “all” Indeed, being postmill is, for me, another reason to prefer an effectual atonement; without it, I don’t see how we can be sure that God’s purposes will conquer, and that the new creation will be populated by billions, and not just by a handful who persevere. Indeed, if his purpose to form a new humanity does not contain within it the purpose to save the full number of that new humanity personally (not individually or abstractly, or whatever), then how did he know that primary purpose would come to pass?

You also say, “There is nothing about my salvation that makes it essential to God's purpose. The marvellous character of God's grace to me is seen more clearly when we realize that He could have achieved His purpose without me. I fear that the Reformed doctrine of election tends to be far too anthropocentric at this point.”

To which I say, yes and no. No, there’s nothing meritorious in me that makes my salvation essential to God’s purpose. But, why is it a problem if, for mysterious reasons, to which I don’t have access, he’s chosen to include me infallibly in the company of the redeemed (I’m not claiming access to that knowledge about myself by the way!) Why is this necessarily anthropocentric? He does it according to His will, for His own glory; He could have done it without me; He chose not to. Similarly, you write, “I am not the direct object of God's saving purpose in a manner that would make me indispensible to its outworking.” And I think my answer is similar: indispensible in what way, and for what reason?

On (4) You speak of universal reconciliation. What do you mean by reconciliation? If all are reconciled how can some apostasize and so end up unreconciled? What of those who are never incorporated into the church? What does it mean for Satan to be reconciled? In Colossians, it seems to me that 1:20 must be interpreted in the light of 2:14f, which indicates that reconciliation means, for some at least, something more like pacification through subjugation, leading to the restoration of the created order under its rightful head, and so true and lasting peace.

How do you reconcile (!) your interpretation of Christ reconciling all things to God with your claim that some still need to be reconciled to him to be spared the coming judgment?

Well, I’ve gone on far too long; hope the questions don’t sound to grumpy. Forgive me if they do; I’m genuinely curious.

Matthew

By Anonymous, at Friday, June 02, 2006 12:34:00 am
Chris,

Most of the issues that you raise were addressed in my previous comment. I will just add a few more comments here.

Firstly, I have no problem saying that Christ died for me personally. I have been personally sprinkled with Christ’s blood by God. I do not believe, however, that to say that Christ died for the body collectively and its members severally necessarily implies that individuals are direct objects of Christ’s atoning work. What I am arguing is that we are objects of the atonement only as members of the body or, by extension, as those who are to be brought into the body.

I believe that this is subtly different from the position put forward by advocates of LA. What I am arguing is that no particular individual is essential to make the Church who she is as the direct object of the atonement. The Church derives her identity from her Head, not from the particular individuals that happen to be her members.

Israel is a good illustration of this. Each individual Israelite was personally included by God in His plan and brought into a privileged relationship with Him. God lovingly redeemed the nation collectively and the members of the nation severally. However, God could cut off thousands of Israelites and still fulfil His promises to Israel. No individual Israelite (apart from the patriarchs) was essential to the identity of Israel as Israel. Individual Israelites participated in this identity, but did not have it as an inalienable private possession.

God saves us personally by means of the death of Christ as members of the Church. However, as an individual, considered apart from the Church, it is misleading to say that Christ died for me. What I am trying to argue is that, considered as an individual, abstracted from the body of Christ, I am not an object of Christ’s atonement. As an individual I am not intrinsic to the identity of the Church for which Christ died. Rather, I participate in the identity of the Church as a member.

Secondly, as regards John’s gospel, I agree that Jesus focuses on people given to Him by the Father. However, it seems to me that far too more assumptions foreign to the text are imported here.

1) The Father’s act of giving people to Christ seems to be something that happens in history, rather than in eternity past. I am not saying that you are making this assumption, but just arguing that we need to be careful not to read a popular Reformed doctrine of election into the text. We can see this in John 6:37 it is also implied by the distinction drawn in 17:20.

2) Understood this way we can see that this is not a fixed group of individuals. More are being added as time goes on. When we talk about the sheep that have been given to Christ we are not talking about ‘the elect’ as Reformed theology generally understands that terminology. Christ’s sheep are His current disciples.

3) In addition to this we must also take into account the fact that the Father removes people who are ‘in Christ’ in John 15. This is also part of John’s understanding of the Father’s work in relation to those in Christ. How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory elements? Quite easily, in fact.

Christ died for His flock. Every one of the sheep within the flock had been given to Him by the Father. None of those within the flock would ever perish. However, the flock is not a static entity in Johannine theology. The problem is that reading a Reformed doctrine of election into John’s gospel has made it into a static entity. Within John’s gospel the very Father who gives people to Christ also takes people away from Him.

None of those that the Father has entrusted to Christ will ever be lost. The whole flock, head for head, will be raised on the last day. However, that does not mean that the Father is unable to remove certain individuals from the flock.

In Christ we are secure from all alien forces that might seek to snatch us from His hand (Romans 8:37-39). Christ intercedes for His flock and preserves them. However, preservation in Christ is not something that we can ever presume upon. If we persistently reject Christ we will find ourselves cut off, not because some alien force wrested us from Christ’s hands, but because the Father removed us from the flock.

Did Christ die for people who would be lost? This ties in with my first point. Christ died for the flock and its members. When the Father removes someone from the flock they cease to be members and are no longer beneficiaries of the death of Christ. Christ’s death never ceases to be completely efficacious.

Thirdly, I have argued that the ‘all or not all’ dilemma is simply unhelpful. For this reason it should not presumed that, just because I reject LA I hold to universal atonement.

I believe that there are both universal and particular elements to the atonement and that we ought not to choose one side over another. I also believe that the universal dimensions to God’s purpose are perfectly and efficaciously achieved by the cross. For example, Christ truly becomes Lord of all persons through the cross, whether they repent or not. I have outlined some of the universal dimensions of the atonement in a previous post.

By Al, at Friday, June 02, 2006 12:40:00 am
Steve first.

1. I have answered this question above.

2. No, at least not in the sense that you are using here. He laid down His life for the sheep. However, He also laid down His life in order to become Lord over the goats, without saving them in the way that He saved His sheep.

3. God certainly sets people apart for His purposes and is sovereign over every event of our lives. This, however, is not the same thing as saying that Christ dies for the purpose of saving individuals A and D, rather than B and C. My salvation as a particular individual is not essential to the purpose for which Christ died.

There are many ways in which God could fulfil the purpose for which Christ died. Saving me is just one possible route that God could take. This does not mean that, looking back at my life, I can’t say that was God’s purpose to save me. I strongly believe that it was God’s purpose to save me. However, the fact that it was God’s purpose to save me does not justify me in teleologically orientating the whole of redemptive history towards the end of my salvation.

This is, I believe, the problem with many Reformed doctrines of election. The salvation of particular individuals rather than others assumes a teleological centrality that is unhealthy in its anthropocentricity (particularly in surpalapsarian formulations, but also in infralapsarian formulations). I am arguing that the teleological centrality belongs to God’s purpose to form a new humanity in His Son. The purpose of God that I see in my salvation has to be clearly subordinated to God’s greater purpose in His Son.

The purpose of God to save me has a contingency relative to the fixity of God’s purpose to form a new humanity in His Son. The former is not necessarily implied by the latter. It is similar to a chef’s purpose in making an omelette. The chef does not (generally) make the omelette in order to use these three eggs rather than those three eggs. Rather, the chef determines to make an omelette and, in making the omelette chooses to make it of these three eggs rather than any others. There is nothing about his purpose to make an omelette that compels him to use one egg rather than another, nor anything to stop him from using all of the eggs or just one of them.

In choosing three particular eggs the chef acts upon them in a purposive manner to make them into an omelette. However, the purpose to make an omelette must be seen to have the priority. The facts that an omelette must always be made of particular eggs and that each egg that composes the omelette will have been particularly chosen and set apart by the chef does not justify us in giving the same teleological priority to the choice of the eggs as we do to the decision to make an omelette.

Matthew,

1. Not all who deny limited atonement deny effectual atonement. Take Lutherans for example (Luther also denied the perseverance of the saints, whilst believing in unconditional election; he held, like I do, that the security of the saints is in Christ). Many of these people in my experience seem to be happy to see a manner in which it is true to speak of Christ’s death being ‘limited’ to the Church or Israel.

The true and final beneficiaries of the atonement are limited to those within the flock of Christ. However, they also believe that the death of Christ has the design of bringing more into the flock. They oppose those who regard the flock as if it were composed of a certain fixed number, resulting from an eternal hidden decree. Fixity is to be found only in the ‘corporate unity of the church with Christ’ (as Ridderbos puts it in his treatment of election in Paul: An Outline of His Theology). We pray that God the Father would give more people to His Son. We pray that our Saviour’s flock would expand just as the first Israel’s flock expanded in the house of Laban.

2. I do not think of the personal solidarity in the abstract. What I am arguing is that the particular members of the solidarity are not intrinsic to the solidarity’s identity, but participate in it. The solidarity’s identity is fixed in the head of the solidarity are the corporate unity that exists with him, not in the particular individuals that happen to be within the solidarity. There is no omelette without particular eggs, but the particular eggs that make up the omelette are not intrinsic to the omelette’s identity as ‘omelette’.

I believe that we can have both the corporate and personal aspects. I am not arguing that we need to abandon the individual aspects in favour of the corporate. My position is slightly different to that.

As regards the Reformed understanding of union with Christ, I am not convinced that this deals with my concerns. Firstly, it seems to me that a misreading of Ephesians 1:3-4 has led many Reformed scholars (John Murray is a good example here) to a misunderstanding of union with Christ. Union with Christ is projected back into ‘eternity past’ and makes us think primarily in terms of a decretal union that precedes any personal union effected by the Spirit. I believe that the union with Christ formed by the Spirit in history must take priority over everything else. We are not truly elect before the foundation of the world until we have been joined to Christ by the work of the Spirit.

It seems to me that Reformed theology tends to get this backwards. Consequently Reformed doctrines of election tend to be formal doctrines of election. We are told that God has elected, rather than the shape and content of that election. I am arguing that a truly Christocentric election would see the totus Christus as the shape and content of election. Peter Leithart puts it well here.

Heinrich Bullinger, in the Second Helvetic Confession, expresses my position quite nicely:

“Therefore, although not on account of any merit of ours, God has elected us, not directly, but in Christ, and on account of Christ, in order that those who are now ingrafted into Christ by faith might also be elected. But those who were outside Christ were rejected, according to the word of the apostle, Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (II Cor. 13:5).

It is in such a statement that I see a Christological understanding of election that I don’t see in many other places in the Reformed tradition. For Bullinger the fixity of election is not found in the choice of particular number of individuals in eternity past, but in Christ and the Church’s unity with Him. Hence, election cannot be understood apart from historical union with Christ. We become elect when we are united to Christ in history (although I think that Bullinger probably would differ with this to some degree).

3. I have dealt with most of these comments in my response to Steve. There is no dichotomy between eggs and omelettes. However, there are distinctions that need to be drawn in the light of teleological priority. Neither my salvation nor that of other particular individuals is fixed and central to God’s purpose. God’s determination to save me and other particular individuals must also be distinguished from God’s purpose to save the Church and its members. The Church is not composed of a fixed number of individuals.

4. Yes, I share your general interpretation of reconciliation in those passages.

I reconcile my interpretation of Christ reconciling all things to God with my claim that some still need to be reconciled to him to be spared the coming judgment as follows. God has restored the creation under its true Lord. He is in the world, extending a general amnesty to all who will submit to Christ. Christian ministers participate in this divine reconciling ministry.

Christ is Lord of all, whether they like it or not. The gospel declares that by His death Christ has become Lord of all and claimed them as His own. He won them from the rule of darkness. They no longer rightfully belong to Sin and Satan. However, most of the world is still dominated by the hostile power of Sin and is in slavery to him. The gospel message frees such people and brings them into the freedom of life in Christ through Baptism, permitting them to share in His rule and authority.

The gospel message comes as an imperative: God has reconciled the world to Himself; we must therefore be reconciled to Him. Those who hold out against Christ as the true Lord of the world will be judged as they are subject to His Lordship whether they truly submit to it or not.

Christ died so that He might be Lord of all. The concept of Lordship includes both judgment and salvation. The fact of universal reconciliation frames both the concepts of salvation for the Church and judgment for those who hold out against God.

I won’t be able to follow up any more questions this evening.

By Al, at Friday, June 02, 2006 2:54:00 am
Hi Mandy. We Lutherans have always been very strong on penal substitution since long before Calvinists started drawing up the Five Points. To answer "What do I have to lose?" here are two things:

1. Justification by faith. In my experience, the Reformed have a tendency to redefine "faith" out of commitment to the 5 Points in a way completely alien to the text of Scripture or, less importantly, the Reformation. Many times, it seems like they really believe in "justification by predestination." Justification by faith is a far more unifying force in Christianity and far more central to the New Testament than getting all your ideas about the operation of the mind and decrees of God in order.

2. Assurance. This is a huge theme in Paul and Hebrews and possibly the weakest point in Calvinist theology. Again, in my experience, Reformed theologians either stress LA or assurance in Christ, but not both at the same time. After all, if Christ himself isn't sufficient proof that God forgives your sins (since he might not have died for you), Baptism certainly can't establish your identity in Christ (since obviously many baptized fall away and thus were never justified, washed clean, or forgiven in the first place), and so you'll need to look elsewhere. The Puritans, for example, pointed the believer toward his sanctification and "outward evidence of internal grace." This is all well and good when your Christian walk is going fine, but what about when you fall? Where do you look? In a time of despair, all the Limited Cross says to you is "Well, maybe you're not really one of the people this was intended for after all. Too bad!"

You'll also lose the ability to just flow with Scripture and feel the constant need to have "responses" to the biblical text, but you'll run into that in any tradition.

By Fearsome Pirate, at Friday, June 02, 2006 1:40:00 pm
Alastair,

So much of what you say leaves me thinking, "yes, of course ... and I believe that too". But along with your wise and balanced positive statements about God's saving work, it seems to me that

1) you work with some false either-ors and end up denying what your affirmations do not require to be denied

2) you've not consistently applied the FV covenant-election distinction which has such an impact on our reading of the apostasy passages

3) it's not illegitimate to ask questions about justice, punishment, intent, particular sovereignty etc - and when those questions are asked then "limited" atonement is the answer

4) put those three together and "limited" atonement really is about what we'd need to say if we were talking at the level of election (rather than covenant) about God's particular sovereignty in saving the world through saving most humans and saving a people by saving people where the "saving" we're discussing relates to that justice of God's by which he condemns (and punishes) or acquits (and blesses) every person according to their every act. The judgment passages about every deed, word; every sin; all that we've done etc need to be taken into account - there is actual punishment for actual sins which is actually meted out on the cross or in hell

5) the questions about "does Jesus die for the goats, Canaanites, Philistines qua goats, Canaanites, Philistines?" has not been answered

6) "limited" atonement is still being talked about as though it's "limited". As you know, to those who believe that, amongst other things, on the cross Jesus was bearing the punishment due to a people (composed, in God's mind, of particular persons) for their sin and sins, genuinely regard "universal" atonement as the "limited" one because it actually saves no-one. It's back to the point that "limited" atonement is the way of saying a) God really saves the people (a co-terminous singular AND plural) he has chosen and b) he does not save everybody

~~~~~

Mandy, you will recognize that Josh's comments miss the mark for those who have taken on board covenant objectivism.

~~~~~

Blessings

David

By DavidF, at Friday, June 02, 2006 3:52:00 pm
Please could Josh or somebody else spell out for me how "unlimited atonement" offers a more secure basis for assurance?

Obviously it's nice to be able to be 100% certain that Jesus died for you, which you can because he died for everybody.

But unless you think that everybody is saved (which so far no-one here's tried to argue), you have to admit that not everybody for whom Jesus died is actually saved.

So on what basis can someone be sure that they are one of those people?

How useful is it to know that Jesus died for me, if that's no guarantee of my salvation?

By Chris Thomson, at Friday, June 02, 2006 5:24:00 pm
And if the effectiveness of the atonement (with respect to any one individual) lies somewhere other than Christ's cross-work, surely that undermines my assurance much more devastatingly? Especially if the difference between those who are saved and those who are not ultimately comes down to something in them.

By Ros, at Friday, June 02, 2006 5:36:00 pm
So on my re-reading-scan of all thses comments, there are no outstanding questions of substance for the real atonement guys, but the proponents of a limited atonemnent have a number of clear and specific questions of importance listed above to get to work on?

Does anyone disagree?

We LA chaps need some distractions (structured procrastination) from proper work, so, come on, what should be on our "To Do" list?

Maybe proving the historical case that Calvin clearly believed LA & Owen was thoroughly Biblical? But it does seem that's all been done in books we all have in our libraries...

So what shall we do today? Maybe those pints?

By Marc Lloyd, at Friday, June 02, 2006 6:03:00 pm
Andrew Grey,

I've taken quick expert advice on the hymn.

Its in 8 8 6 8 8 6, I think, as I'm sure you'll know.

So we could easily find tunes for it? In Praise!?

A pint to the 1st person who chooses it for cahpel. Mr T?

A bullet proof vest for the 1st person to choose it for chapel at Moore! :)

By Marc Lloyd, at Friday, June 02, 2006 6:17:00 pm
Just a quick question that might, I think, clarify things considerably?

Can someone please give
A PRECISE DEFINITION OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT?

Does it mean:
(1) Christ's sufferings were of infinite worth, and thus sufficient for the sins of 'all people' in this sense?

Or does it mean:
(2) Christ died with the intention of actually redeeming 'all people'?

Or does it mean something else?

:-)

S

By Anonymous, at Friday, June 02, 2006 7:04:00 pm
Sorry about the superfluous '?' above...

:-)

S

By Anonymous, at Friday, June 02, 2006 7:06:00 pm
A PRECISE DEFINITION OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT? - cont'd

Another way of phrasing this question is as follows:

What does 'for all' mean in the assertion, 'Christ died for all'?

Does it mean:
(1) 'enduring an intensity of suffering equivalent to, or exceeding, that deserved by all people for their sins';

or does it mean:
(2) 'intending to redeem all'?

I think the distinction here could be very important. Which does UA assert?

:-)

SJ

By Anonymous, at Friday, June 02, 2006 8:36:00 pm
100 comments in 10 days.

Who would have thought it?

By Mandy, at Friday, June 02, 2006 11:06:00 pm
"LA works only within Penal substitution, IMHO; question that, and the formulation falls apart."

Quite right. But why would you want to deny penal substitution?

By Ros, at Friday, June 02, 2006 11:25:00 pm
PRECISE DEFINITION OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT - cont'd... a better idea:

I guess people might have different understandings - if so, it would be great to hear from everyone who holds to a universal atonement who has contributed to this blog.

Does UA say that Christ died 'for all' in the sense of...

(1) infinite worth?
(2) intention to redeem all people?
(3) something else?

:-)

S

By Anonymous, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:01:00 am
At about the 77th post my view from the stands of this coliseum was that the LA gladiators were "winning" the debate.

But, since Alastair has joined the discussion I’m not sure anymore.

For instance, I don’t think the point re John 15 has been answered. Somebody may have hinted at a nuance between "covenant" and "election" somewhere in the 100+ posts. Does that answer (or rebut) Alastair's argument re John 15?

If so, I would appreciate if someone could open that up a bit more for the benefit of this layman.

I also find myself agreeing with him when he says that LA is too anthropocentric.

The "L" and the "P" are all well and good; but, don't we also have to remember that it is "he who endures to the end [that] shall be saved"?

By Celal Birader, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:53:00 am
David,

In response to your points (the following number system does not correspond to your points):

1) “Does Jesus die for the goats, Canaanites, Philistines qua goats, Canaanites, Philistines?” Yes and no. Christ dies for those outside of His flock (a) in the sense that He desires them to become part of His flock; (b) in the sense that He asserts His Lordship over them (Romans 14:9; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15); (c) in the sense that He dies as One summing up the human race in Himself, bearing the entire entail of Adam’s sin.

Christ does not for those outside of His flock (a) when we view the atonement from the perspective of the final end intended (i.e. Christ does not die for goats to be safe as goats); (b) when we view the atonement from the perspective of the scope of its benefits.

2) I don’t hold to the FV covenant-election distinction. I did for some time, but it ended up raising more questions than answers. I do not believe that there really is a covenant-election distinction at all. I believe that this is something that we have imposed upon Scripture. Those who are in Christ (i.e. in the covenant) are elect; those who are outside of Christ are not elect. Outside of Christ no one is elect in any sense of the word; in Christ no one is non-elect in any sense of the word.

The FV covenant-election distinction seems to work by saying that God has not revealed whether we are eternally elect as individuals or not, but He has revealed our covenant status to us and our covenant status is the means by which we know whether we are elect or not. The covenant gives us a conditional promise of unconditional election. Election is not collapsed into the covenant. Some within the covenant will fall away and so we must recognize that such people were not eternally elect, whilst maintaining we have biblical justification for calling covenant members ‘elect’.

My problem with this is that, in the final analysis, the objects of election are individuals, rather than the new humanity solidarity of the totus Christus. You will probably argue that there is no need to oppose these things: the object of election is the totus Christus and the particular individuals that constitute it. I disagree.

I am arguing that election must be exhaustively mediated by Christ if we are to be consistent with the Scripture and have true assurance of our own status. We become elect when we are united to Christ in history. We would cease to be elect if we were cut off from Him. The Book of Life is Christ. Those in Him are elect; those outside of Him are not. By retaining a covenant-election distinction the FV acknowledges the existence of elect people (in some sense) outside of Christ. Such people’s election is not exhaustively mediated by Christ.

They are elected as individuals to be in Christ, rather than elect because they are in Christ. There is a very important distinction between these two positions. Some seek to get around this by arguing that we are elected in Christ as individuals before the foundation of the world. This seems to come from a misreading of Ephesians 1:3-4. It also damages the doctrine of union with Christ by making it a decretal union at root. The elect have always been united to Christ in a decretal sense, even when they are alienated from Christ in the more important sense.

The problem with this proposed solution is that Christ still does not exhaustively mediate election. What we have is a large group of individuals in decretal union with Christ being the object of election. This seems to be the route that you have to take when you make the particular individuals that constitute the body of Christ essential to its identity. I am arguing that this is an unbiblical route to take. The Church derives its essential identity from its Head, not from its members. The object of election is the totus Christus, which is formed by personal union with Christ by the Spirit, rather than merely being a decretal union. If this is the case then we only become elect when we are brought into this personal union. At no point are we essential to the identity of this personal union.

What constitutes the decretal elect’s identity? To be the true group of the elect, according to Reformed theology, it would have to contain a fixed number of particular individuals in union with Christ. The presence of elect person Joe Bloggs is essential to the existence of the decretal solidarity. Remove Joe Bloggs and the decretal solidarity is no longer truly present. [Incidentally, understand election in the way that I am suggesting and you need no longer believe in double predestination; nor do you need to believe that the Fall is necessary for the fulfilment of the decree.]

If election is the choice of fixed number of particular individuals then it is essentially hidden, because its object is unknown. We do not know the particular individuals that God has decreed to save. Christ enacts a decree that remains hidden behind Him. Although we know that all of the members of the decretal union will one day be brought into full personal union with Christ we cannot see God’s purpose of election revealed in the personal union itself because the purpose is not the creation of a personal union per se, but the creation of a personal union with individuals B, F, Q and Y rather than others.

I am arguing that it is the creation of a personal solidarity that is God’s electing purpose. Seen this way the object of election is the totus Christus and its members. This decree of election is completely revealed in Christ. We know the object of God’s election. We can know that we are elect. We can also know that others are elect (Philippians 4:3). There is no election that lies behind the personal covenantal union that we enjoy with Christ. The only reason why we would want to retain the FV covenant-election distinction is if we want to hold to a hidden decree that is not fully mediated by Christ. It seems to me that it is as simple as that.

[Incidentally, it should be noticed that I am not denying the equal ultimacy of the one and the many in the totus Christus. The One — Christ — is always constituted by the many, just as He Himself constitutes them. What is being denied is that the particular individuals that are within the one-many solidarity of the body of Christ have an equal ultimacy.]

It might be questioned what difference all of the above makes for one who holds that God orders ever single event in history. Surely we will end up with the same thing: God in His sovereignty saves some and not others and we have no way of knowing which He will save and which He will not and, more importantly, which of the two categories we fall into. I believe that it still makes an important difference.

First, the great purpose of election that God is seeking to work out is fully revealed. Whilst we may not know the exact way that God is going to work particular events to that great purpose, we do know the final goal. The exact set of individuals who will be saved simply does not have the teleological centrality that it does in most Reformed systems.

Second, we do not have a fixed position relative to God’s purpose. We can either positively participate in its outworking in believing allegiance to Christ or we can resist it. Such a purpose calls for a response of faith on our part.

Thirdly, we can know where we stand relative to God’s election. We know this by virtue of our relation to Christ. There is no more fundamental decretal union hiding behind covenantal union with Christ. The Church is the elect; those outside the Church are reprobate. There are no elect outside of the Church and no non-elect within the Church. My status as elect or reprobate and my knowledge of that status are both completely mediated by my relationship with Christ. The hidden manner in which God’s providence guides my life is no threat at all, because I know that God’s providence is ultimately focused on the outworking of His good purpose in Christ Jesus, which is no secret. I do not need to question whether God’s purpose is my salvation or damnation.

Fourthly, I do not believe that the decree of God (understood as His determination of the outcome of all events) takes place in eternity past. It is not a closed and completed event and does not take place in our absence. Consequently, God’s providential ordering of my life is very much a relational reality and is not deterministic or fatalistic in the slightest. I have argued that the idea that God has determined the outcome of all historical events in eternity past tends to collapse into a form of deism (towards the end of the sixth comment here).

Understood this way, the God who secretly orders the events of my life is — if I am a Christian — a God who is known to me in Christ. I know where I stand with this God and I can be certain of His love for me, because He has expressed His love for me in Christ. I can be sure that His intentions for me are good. The problem with the covenant-election distinction is that I can never be exactly sure where I stand with the electing God. His love expressed to me in covenant seems genuine enough, but I can never be certain that I have not been chosen for damnation and His purposes for me are not good. The face of the electing God is always hidden from me.

The FV covenant-election distinction tells us not to speculate about the hidden things, but to concentrate on what God has revealed and recognize the manner in which we can come to a knowledge of our election by means of what God makes known in the covenant. This is an improvement on most popular Reformed positions, but such a position still has the face of the electing God obscured. No matter how comforting God’s words to me in covenant may appear, I know that the final word is the word of election and I don’t know what that word says. Behind all of the covenantal love of Christ we have the Deus Absconditus of election and this is terrifying. Both Calvin and the FV rightly insist that we must look to Christ, but until they show that the electing decree is open and revealed in Christ they are failing to solve the root problem.

3) I don’t believe that any questions of justice, punishment, intent or particular sovereignty demand the LA answer. In God’s sovereignty He saves some and doesn’t save others. However, the purpose of God is not to save some rather than others. Rather, in fulfilling His purpose to form the totus Christus God saves some rather than others. There is a very important difference here.

The purpose of God is to form the totus Christus. This purpose could be fulfilled by universal salvation or by the salvation of just a few. It is God’s desire that all be saved. In His divine permission God voluntarily permits individuals to go to damnation, against His expressed desire. However, God’s purpose does not necessitate such a frustration of His desire (a very important point).

Neither God’s purpose nor His desire are limited to the salvation of just a fixed number of particular individuals. God’s purpose is the broader purpose of forming the totus Christus; God’s desire is the salvation of all men.

4) I don’t believe that the punishment that Christ bore on the cross is of the character that your comments seem to suggest (I may be misreading you here). I don’t believe that it is helpful to think in terms of Christ bearing lots of particular sins, each with their attendent amount of demerit. Rather, what Christ does is bring the old humanity that is summed up in Himself down to the punishment of final death and separation from God, in order that a new humanity might be formed in Him following the resurrection. The judgment or punishment that Christ bears is not best thought of as that degree of punishment which is appropriate to a particular total of demerit. Rather, it is the definitive and final separation of man from God. The judgment of hell should be thought of in the same manner. Hell is eternal because the judgment that has been rendered is final and definitive, not because sin continues or because sin against an infinite God demands infinite punishment.

Naturally as human beings we belong to a solidarity (‘Sin’) that tends towards and is destined to this final and irreversible judgment of separation from God. The wages of sin is death (not just a particular amount of suffering). When we are baptized into Christ’s death we are brought through the final and definitive judgment that was cast at Calvary and need no longer face condemnation. The punishment has been born. In Christ God’s wrath has been appeased. The death that was the wages of our sin has taken place when we died with Christ and now we are free from the mastery of Sin and can live in newness of life. Nevertheless, we know that if we forsake Christ there no longer remains an offering for sin but only a fearful expectation of judgment.

5) I believe that limited atonement really is limited. I have explained many of the reasons why under my third heading. I believe that we can have an effectual atonement and deny universal salvation whilst still opposing limited atonement. I do not hold an Arminian understanding of the atonement. It is not my choice that makes the atonement effectual. The atonement really has turned away God’s wrath and not just made this a possibility to be realized if we repent. The place where Sin has been condemned and God’s wrath turned away is in Christ. In Him we have the head of a new humanity who has passed through death and judgment and come out the other side.

The atonement does not accomplish everything by itself. The effectual atonement is accompanied by the effectual work of the Spirit by which we are effectually called into the body of Christ. Through the Spirit a new humanity is being formed in Christ, ensuring that Christ has not shed His blood in vain. The fact that not all are drawn into union with Christ by the Spirit does not undermine the effective character of His work. Nor does it imply limited atonement. It is to be explained by the fact that, in His divine permission (not in His purpose), God allows some to resist His Spirit, whilst graciously overcoming that resistance in others; He continues to wrestle with some whilst abandoning others to their chosen fate.

This picture of effectual atonement is quite consistent with my denial of limited atonement.

6) I believe that Josh’s comments carry weight, even for those who adopt ‘covenant objectivism’ and the FV covenant-election distinction. I have explained some of the reasons why the doctrine of LA undermines and misdirects faith in my sixth comment under this post.

By Al, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:31:00 am
Chris and Ros,

The understanding of atonement that I am putting forward offers a securer basis for assurance.

I know that Christ died savingly for me because I have been baptized. I have His word for the fact that He died savingly for me. As I look to Christ’s word in my Baptism by faith I can be sure that I have been saved by His death.

On the other hand, LA gives us no such assurance. If you hold to LA, Christ nowhere says in Word or Sacrament: ‘Chris, I died for you.’ How can you arrive at the knowledge that Christ did in fact die for you? The general tendency is to present things in terms of a conditional statement: ‘Christ died for those who believe. If we believe then Christ died for us.’ The problem with such statements (whether they are read in a ‘hyper-Calvinistic’ sense or not) is that it makes our own faith the place where we discover our status. Faith is directed away from Christ and starts to look at itself. This can easily turn into navel-gazing. [The following paragraph is copied from comments on my blog here.]

This, of course, is devastating for assurance. Our faith is directed away from Christ and His Word to ourselves. Peter Leithart has a good treatment of these issues here. The Reformed doctrine of LA (even in qualified forms) gives me no comfort whatever (I know, I have been there) because it gives me no warrant in God’s Word in Scripture and Sacrament to believe that Christ died for me. Any belief that I have that Christ died for me is a belief arising out of the belief that I believe. Many people have this belief, so I am not arguing that it is impossible. I am just arguing that it is an unhealthy misdirection of faith away from its true object and will tend to lead to doubt and lack of assurance.

In answer to Ros’s comments I would point out that the cross of Christ does not accomplish our salvation single-handedly. Christ’s work did not finish at the cross, but continues as He works in the Church and world by His Word and Spirit. When Christ effectually calls me by His Spirit and speaks His Word to me in Baptism He gives me great cause for assurance. The difference between the saved and the lost does not come down to something in us. We have nothing that we have not received.

By Al, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 10:52:00 am
Steve,

You ask,

“Does UA say that Christ died ‘for all’ in the sense of...

(1) infinite worth?
(2) intention to redeem all people?
(3) something else?”

In brief response to your question.

You ask if UA refers to Christ’s ‘enduring an intensity of suffering equivalent to, or exceeding, that deserved by all people for their sins.’ I have argued that this is an unhelpful way of thinking of the atonement. What people deserved for their sins was not a particular intensity of suffering, but death. The Scriptures do not teach us that the wages of sin are X amount of suffering per ounce of sin or anything like that; the wages of sin is separation from God in death.

If by ‘infinite worth’ we simply mean that all men can find the punishment due to their sin fully met in Christ, then I wholeheartedly affirm it. No man who comes to Christ will find His work insufficient for His salvation.

What I would want to affirm beyond ‘infinite worth’ is ‘universal scope’. Christ’s death has reference to a whole humanity. The incarnate Christ died as the One who summed up the human race in Himself. He died as One summing up an old humanity in Himself and rose again as the Head of a new humanity. Christ does not merely sum up a subcategory of individuals with Adamic humanity and rescue them as fragments from the old humanity. In His death Christ takes the entire entail of Adam’s sin upon Himself, not merely the sins of certain particular individuals. In Christ’s death and resurrection we see God working out His purpose for the entire human race, not merely some members of it.

Does Christ die for all in the sense of an ‘intention’ to redeem all people? I believe that Christ dies for all in the sense of having a ‘desire’ to redeem all people (1 Timothy 2:3-7). A lot depends on how we understand the term ‘all’. Do we understand it as having reference to all understood individually (i.e. each particular human being) or all understood as a complete entity (i.e. the whole human race)? Understood in the former manner I would say that Christ dies with the desire, but not the intention, to save all. Not all individuals will be saved (as I do not believe that God will permit His intention, or purpose, to be frustrated I deny that God can intend such a thing). Understood in the latter sense I would say that Christ dies with both the desire and the intention to save all.

Through His cross Christ does nothing less than save the human race. The new humanity formed in Christ following the resurrection is in genuine continuity with the old humanity in Adam. God’s original purposes for the old humanity are met as the new humanity is formed in Christ. This is why Christ’s work is continually paralleled to Adam’s sin. Both spread to an entire humanity.

To speak of a limited atonement in this context is terribly unhelpful. What we see in Christ’s death is the death of Adamic humanity (not merely a subsection of a humanity). What we see following Christ’s resurrection is the formation of a new humanity (not merely a particular fraction of a humanity). The humanity formed in Christ is complete and whole, even though there are individuals who will not be saved.

Are there further senses in which Christ died ‘for all’? Yes. An important one is that Christ died in order to become Lord of all, to defeat the hostile powers and gain universal Lordship, claiming the whole of humanity for Himself. We see this sense of universal atonement in Romans 14:9 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.

By Al, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:28:00 am
Two brief points before I go to bed:

1) I strongly affirm penal substitution and see no reason why a proper understanding of penal substitution need demand LA.

2) There is also a discussion of LA taking place on my blog, in the comments of this post. Many of the points that I have made there help to clarify the points that I have made here.

By Al, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:31:00 am
PRECISE DEFINITION OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT - cont'd...

Of course, whatever your stated position on the extent of the atonement, it is still a perfectly reasonable thing to ask the question: 'Whom did Christ intend to redeem in his death?'

Thanks, Alister, for your reply, but you evaded this question.

I'd love to hear from Moore College people about their view on the question above, namely:

In your view does UA say that Christ died 'for all' in the sense of...

(1) infinite worth?
(2) intention to redeem all people?
(3) something else?

Sorry to be a slow learner...

:-)

S

By Anonymous, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:18:00 pm
Steve,

I don't think that I avoided the question. I think that my answer to the question should be clear from what I have said to this point. You ask: 'Whom did Christ intend to redeem in his death?'

I take your question to be asking which individuals Christ intended to redeem by His death. You seem to wanting me to commit myself to an 'all or not all' answer to this question. I reject the question itself as a bogus one. Christ does not die with the intention of saving all individuals (although He does die with the desire to do so), nor does Christ die with the intention of saving only a fixed number of particular individuals.

Christ dies with the intention of redeeming humanity, although not necessarily every member of the human race. Christ dies with the intention of redeeming a people (not understood as a fixed number of particular individuals) for Himself. Neither of these intentions are individual-specific.

The intention behind Christ's death is to form the true vine, not to form the true vine of individuals B, D, G, etc. Christ's intention behind the cross does not demand the salvation or damnation of any particular person.

By Al, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:26:00 pm
Don't you think if Christ was worried about us having our theological points all exactly straight, he would have laid it out a little clearer? Best thing you could do? Go with what Christ was clear on: find some messed up people and love them. I will go out on a limb and say God won't care what exact theological view you hold if you get that point right.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:27:00 pm
Without wishing to lower the tone of this very stimulating conversation, I believe that this is just another reason why Non-conformist churches really ought not to be sending students to Oak Hill.

Although I recognise that this discussion is necessary and helpful, it just goes to show how dodgy these guys really are...

Go on, slate me

By Anonymous, at Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:27:00 pm
Anonymous,

When you say "how dodgy these guys really are", you presumably object to the historic Reformed faith as articulated in the major Reformed confessions from the 16th Century onwards, and which is still held to by many Non-conformist churches in the UK today?

Just checking.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:40:00 am
Do you mind if I ask for a quick clarification: do you mean 'dodgy' because:

(1) You disagree with the theological position held by the Oak Hill people participating in this discussion?

or because

(2) You think we're spending too much time discussing theological niceties rather than loving people?

If you mean (1) then it sounds like you've made your mind up and there's probably not much I can add to what's already been said, other than to plead that we don't divide over this and to point out that lots of non-conformist churches hold to this doctrine. But please don't write off Oak Hill merely on the basis that you don't agree with absolutely everything that's taught there.

If you mean (2) then a sincere thank you for the challenge. I for one need to be constantly reminded to keep putting Jesus' teaching into practice and to love 'not with word or tongue but in deed and truth' (1 John 3:18). Please be assured that that is exactly what we're encouraged to do at Oak Hill, and that this sort of discussion is not what we spend all of our time on.

Having said that, if one of the most loving things we can do for someone is to tell them the gospel, then I do think it is vital that we understand clearly what the gospel is. If you've followed this discussion closely you'll have realised that it does raise big questions about the nature of the gospel itself. J. I. Packer's introduction to Owen's The Death of Death is helpful on this point. So my conviction is that this kind of theological reflection is absolutely essential if a pastor is going to obey Titus 1:9 and to love the congregation faithfully.

I can't help wondering whether it's partly a failure to do this that has led to the current confusion in our churches about what the gospel is. But perhaps I'm preaching to the converted here since you described the discussion as 'necessary and helpful'.

Either way, why not come to one of the college open days and see for yourself? I'm sure I've fallen down on this before, but I think it's important to be very sure of our facts before accusing an institution of being 'dodgy'.

By Chris Thomson, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:42:00 am
Alastair, thanks for your reply to my question about assurance. I'm afraid I'm still a little puzzled though. Do you think everyone who is baptised will be saved? If not, don't you at some stage still have to ask the question whether you are truly 'in the faith' (2 Cor. 13:5)?

By Chris Thomson, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:52:00 am
What are the chances of someone humouring me with a succint, point-by-point refutation of each of the 14 objections to universal atonement I outlined above?

Sorry if I'm being slow and they've all already been answered, but if so it would be useful to have them set out systematically. I think that would really strengthen the UA case.

Thanks!

By Chris Thomson, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:20:00 am
What I see going on here is that the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction and it needs to come back to somewhere in the middle.

With the Reformation, the theological pendulum did swing, with ideas such as "the priesthood of all believers" the "visible/invisible church" (although this notion may have been around from before the Reformation), away form C-H-U-R-C-H as we have it in the Bible and in all that is right and correct about Christian tradition.

Now with NPP the pendulum has swung (rightly so, in my opinion) away from this general emphasis on "the-individual-and-his-God" kinda thing back toward an appreciation of "Israel" (of which DavidF has given us a nice taste in this thread) "church", "body of Christ", the “Jew/Gentile NT paradigm”. Moreover, with the FV the VISIBLE church also seems to be making a comeback. We need all of this.

However, in all of the NPP stuff in particular (which I have been reading) is that there is a new danger: the individual is now getting lost in all the theological shuffle.

As I said at the beginning, the pendulum is now gone a little beyond the vertical in the other direction. I think this means that we now somehow have to rebuild our theology about the individual believer's assurance, the individual believer's justification, the individual believer's sanctification,etc. in a completely new way in the light of the new insights that NPP has given us and which is also even more biblical.

"More biblical than Calvin? More biblical than Reformation theology?” Well, why not if we really believe in "semper reformanda"?

I did not go through the mill of a formal theological education like most people on this discussion so you may take my words in that light, I don't mind. But, it does look to me here that the ground has really been cut out from under LA and I don’t mind saying “the emperor has no clothes”.

But I am not advocating that we throw all the systematics that is being taught in good places like Oak Hill out the window. Even if we don't have some better systematic in place, I think keeping with what we have got is necessary because it safeguards the gospel from dangers like that Semi-Pelagian (mock) Catechism spoof of which there is a link on David Field's blog (and other Oak Hill blogs).

But we can't stop here because, in my own opinion, if we do then Christian theology will have completely lost all ability to engage with the thinking of 21st century man. As Christian thinkers we're absolutely not at all engaging in the cultural and political arenas. Our theology is not prepared for the presence of 20+ million Muslims in a post-Christian Europe. Our theology is not prepared for a revived state of Israel (however you may view it) and so is not engaging well, if at all, with (secular or religious) Jewish thinking.

Well I think I stop here as I have said quite a lot. I hope some of it helpful to somebody.

By Celal Birader, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:29:00 am
Chris,

Do I think everyone who is baptised will be saved? If by saved you mean finally saved, no, I do not. Faith is a condition of salvation. Those without faith will not be saved. Surely this means that knowledge of God’s Word in Baptism to us is not enough to know that we are saved and we have to add knowledge of our own faith? No, I don’t think so.

I strongly agree with the position of Luther as described by Phillip Cary and summarized by Peter Leithart. Cary observes that, within the Reformed system assurance of my salvation demands “not only the certainty of God’s promise but also the assurance that I actually believe it. For if faith is to include the certainty that I am saved, it must include the certainty that I am among the elect, which requires me to be certain that I have faith. To be assured I have faith I must perform a ‘reflex act,’ as the Puritans called it, in which I look at myself and recognize that I am a believer. But with the rather terrifying distinction between temporary and saving faith in mind, the reflex act will have to look not just at whether I believe the gospel is true but at whether that belief has had the effect on my life that true saving faith must have.”

I believe that we don’t need to know that we have faith to know that we are saved. The certainty of God’s promise is quite enough. Whilst faith is certainly a condition of salvation we don’t need to know that we meet this condition to know that we are saved. We know that we are saved precisely as we believe in God’s word of promise in Baptism. There is no need to believe that we believe. All the assurance that we need is to be found in the act of believing itself.

How do we know that we are in the faith? How do we know that Christ is in us? I know that Christ is in me as I grasp hold of Him by faith. I know that I am in Christ by looking to Christ by faith, not by looking within myself for faith. Whilst I may believe that I believe, this is never ground for my assurance; my assurance is solely to be found in the act of believing Christ.

What does it mean to examine ourselves, then? There is the possibility of false assurance, which rests on something other than divine promises. There is also the possibility that the true assurance of faith might be assailed by doubts. Self-examination is the means by which we prove that our faith is truly grounded. Faith need not know itself, but it must know its object. Self-examination is the means by which we test whether this is in fact the case. Faith is defined by its object and self-examination is the means by which we discover the true object of our faith.

Whilst self-examination can tell me that I do in fact believe — that Christ is the object of my faith — and can tell me that my assurance is in fact true, it is not self-examination that gives me that true assurance in the first place. Self-examination proves my assurance to be true; it does not give it to me in the first place. The true foundation of assurance is found, not in the knowledge that I believe, but the act of looking to Christ by faith. Whilst a successful result in self-examination can be of great comfort it does not create assurance, but manifests it.

This may sound strange, but I think that many people have true assurance, but don’t know it. Many people have true assurance, but don’t enjoy it because they doubt that it is true assurance. Their hearts accuse them. For such people, self-examination, if done properly (ideally guided pastorally) can provide a way out. Such self-examination can expose all of the false objects of faith. It can show us all the reasons why we can’t trust our own hearts. However, it can also reveal that there is an object of our faith — Christ — who is certain and is not untrustworthy like our hearts.

Unfortunately many people are looking for assurance in the wrong place and so don’t enjoy what they have possessed all the way along. They are using self-examination as a means of creating assurance, rather than as a means of proving assurance. Such a quest for assurance misdirects faith from its object and severely weakens our enjoyment of assurance. It also weakens our possession of assurance as our faith becomes distracted from Christ. Such self-examination is caught up with the intrinsic qualities of my faith, and pays less and less attention to faith’s object.

So, in short, I do not need to know that I have faith to have and enjoy genuine assurance in God’s Word to me in Baptism. When this assurance is attacked by doubts about the state of my own heart, I find renewed assurance, not by looking at my heart, but by directing my attention to Christ’s word again, with all the greater determination: ‘I have been baptized!’ When I am called to test whether my assurance is genuine, the self-reflection that takes place is not concerned with the intrinsic properties of my faith but with its object. It proves my assurance genuine, but does not create it.

I will respond to your fourteen objections as quickly as I can.

1. John 10:14-15 - does Jesus lay down his life for the sheep, or for everybody?

Viewing the atonement with reference to its final result, Christ lays down His life for the sheep. The atonement will only be saving within the community of the sheep. Christ lays down His life for the sheep, but it is incorrect to oppose the idea of Christ dying for the sheep and Christ dying for everybody. Christ dies for the sheep, with the desire that all be brought into the flock. The sheep are not ultimately a certain fixed number of particular individuals, but a body of people in solidarity with Christ the Head.

2. Acts 20:28 - did God buy the church with his blood, or everybody?

Similar points apply here. God bought the Church with His blood, but it is His desire that everyone be brought into the Church (a desire expressed in the universal preaching of the gospel) and He does not desire or intend the death of any. In bringing people into the Church God sprinkles then with the blood of Christ that covers the whole household of the saved, redeeming them also.

3. Ephesians 5:25-6 - did Christ give himself up for the church to make her holy, or for everybody?

My position on this should be clear from my previous comments.

4. Revelation 5:9 - did Christ purchase with his blood people from every tribe and language and people and nation, or did he purchase everybody?

Ditto. Universal atonement does not mean universal salvation. Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6). I understand this statement to mean that Christ died a) with the desire that all be ransomed (even though that desire would not be fulfilled); b) with the intention that a ransom sufficient for all be provided; c) with the intention that an entire human race be ransomed, albeit not every individual. We are only ransomed personally and actually when we are baptized into His death. This ransom is merely the application of Christ’s once for all ransom to us.

5. Romans 8:32 - does Paul think it’s possible that God might give his son up for someone and not give him all things, including eternal life?

Christ gave Himself up for His Church — His flock — not a fixed number of particular individuals. His people will receive all things. However, God the Father will remove unfaithful people from Christ. This does not compromise the promise in the slightest because the object of the promise is not a set of elect individuals, but the solidarity of the Church.

6. Matthew 1:21 - does Jesus save his people from their sins, or just make them ‘savable’?

He saved them. Nothing less than full salvation would be satisfactory. Whilst I may oppose the Reformed doctrine, I far prefer it to the Arminian understanding of the atonement. Christ’s people are those in Him, His flock. In His death Christ decisively turned away the wrath of God that hung over them.

7. Romans 3:25 - does Jesus’ death actually propitiate the Father’s wrath, or just make it possible for him to be propitiated?

Once again, Jesus’ death actually propitiates the Father’s wrath.

8. 1 Peter 3:18 - did Jesus die to bring us to God, or just to make it possible for us to come to God?

Jesus died to bring us to God. The possibility-realization model simply will not do. The problem that I see with your questions is two-fold. First, your questions consistently assume that the object of Christ’s atoning work is, in the final analysis a particular set of individuals, rather than a personal solidarity. Second, your questions tend to abstract the cross work of Christ from the work of the Spirit. Taken by itself, the cross of Christ would do us little good. Calvin writes (in Institutes III.i.1):—

“…the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. … Peter says, that believers are “elect” “through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 1:2). By these words he reminds us, that if the shedding of his sacred blood is not to be in vain, our souls must be washed in it by the secret cleansing of the Holy Spirit.”

This is not an Arminian possibility-realization scenario. Rather, it is a recognition that for the cross to be efficacious in our case Christ’s blood must be applied to us by the Spirit. The cross removes wrath, but for us to enter the realm where wrath has been removed the blood of Christ must be sprinkled on through the work of the Holy Spirit.

9. If Jesus died for everybody, to save them (Matthew 1:21), to redeem and purify them (Titus 2:14), to bring them to God (1 Peter 3:18) etc., then why didn’t those things happen? What was lacking?

Whilst it was God’s desire that everyone be saved through the death of Christ, it was not his intention to save everyone. However, it was not His intention to just save a particular number either. God’s intention was to form a new humanity in His Son. This intention is being perfectly fulfilled. Through the death of Christ God is redeeming and purifying a people and bringing them to Himself.

In God’s (voluntary, not involuntary as Arminians tend to hold) permission His desire is not fulfilled (even though His intention is). In His permission He always some to resist His Holy Spirit, whilst graciously overcoming that resistance in others.

10. (Antipating the obvious comeback) If it was our faith that was lacking, how come Jesus’ death didn’t deal with people’s unbelief along with all their other sins?

I am not an Arminian, so that was not my comeback. The reason why not all are saved is attributable to divine permission, not divine purpose. God’s permission must be distinguished from His will. See this post of mine and the comments afterwards for a discussion of this distinction (Joel Garver’s comments are particularly helpful).

11. If Christ bore everybody’s sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24), how can God justly punish anybody for their sins?

Because the punishment borne by Christ at the cross is not to be thought of in terms of a particular amount of suffering demanded by the degree of demerit that belongs to a particular number of sins. The punishment that Christ bears is the death sentence that hangs over Israel and the human race, the sentence that came upon Adam’s sin and the many further sins that followed.

Through the Law the sin of the world is imputed to Israel, gathered together in one place so that it can be dealt with there. N.T. Wright is very good on this. Peter Leithart also has some helpful thoughts on it here. The problem with the objection that you make is that it is based of a form of sacrificial logic that just does not seem to be biblical. It sees imputation in terms of the demerit of the sins of discrete individuals (the elect) being put to Christ’s account, rather than recognizing the significance of the fact that Christ dies as Israel’s Messiah, the One who sums up the priestly nation in Himself. Imputation is to be understood in the light of Christ’s Adamic role.

12. Why would God send his Son to die for everybody yet only elect some to benefit from his death?

I do not believe that election is any more limited than the atonement is. The object of election is not a set of particular individuals but the body of Christ. God is sovereign over who comes into the body of Christ (there is no denial of God’s comprehensive ordering of events here), but it is not His purpose to save some rather than others. The particular individuals who participate in the body of Christ are not essential to its identity as the body of Christ. In His divine permission He allows man to Fall and some to perish eternally. It is not God’s eternal purpose that anyone suffer eternal damnation.

13. Why does Jesus not pray for all if he was dying for all (John 17:9)?

My first few answers should adequately cover this question.

14. Romans 6:1-14/2 Tim 2:11 - How can we have a share in Christ’s death and not in his life?

Universal atonement does not mean universal application of Christ’s blood (which would be universal salvation). Only within the Church do we have a true share in Christ’s death.

By Al, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:29:00 am
The comment above will be my last contribution to this fascinating discussion. After this weekend I won't have much free time. Thank you all for your patience with my grossly overlong comments and for your gracious interaction (and thanks to Mandy for hosting us all). Lord-willing, I will write a lengthy post summing up my position on this subject on my blog sometime in the next few days.

Blessings.

By Al, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:37:00 am
I know a few of you so I hope you don't mind a brief comment. And having just read through all this my brain is struggling, so it will be short.

John Owen's walk on part is a bit off. I commend Carl Trueman's book - but also one that hasn't been mentioned. Sebastian Rehnman is the world's greatest living Swedish expert on Owen and his book Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen has a chapter (6) on 'The Organization of Theology.' Rehnman shows that Owen began his theology with the redemptive flow of supernatural revelation. In other words, (can I say it?) biblical theology. Of course, this means that Owen thinks that Jesus, not Aristotle, is the centre of history, which allows Rehnman to conclude by saying 'Owen's scholasticism is less argumentatively and metaphysically oriented than that of medieval scholasticism and also lays stress on the historical person and work of Christ ... His theology has, for all it adherence to scholasticism and contrary to the argument of much modern scholarship on Reformed orthodoxy, a Christocentric and practical character.' (p.181)

And a word from my sponsor. Jonathan Edwards was a sufficient for all / efficient for the elect Reformed theologian. On the point re evangelism, Edwards preached the sufficiency of Christ's death to sinners (without distinction). So, for example, 'The blood of Christ is so precious, that it is fully sufficient to pay the debt you have contracted ... Of such dignity and excellency is Christ in the eyes of God, that he has suffered so much for poor sinners, God is willing to be at peace with them, however vile and unworthy they have been ...' Works, 19, 375.

Thank you.

Michael McClenahan

By Michael McClenahan, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 7:36:00 am
Alastair, thank you for your reply to my questions which has really helped to clarify things.

It does sound to me as though the difference between us is really about the nature of election rather than about the extent/intent of the atonement. Specifically, I think we disagree about whether God elected specific individuals 'in Christ' before the world or only elected the church corporately.

I'd definitely want to affirm much of what you say about God's election of a people rather than 'just' individuals. But I do think that verses like Acts 13:48 make it difficult to wholly exclude individual election.

I'd still be interested to hear from any of the Moore College people (you guys still out there?) as to how they might reconcile their position on the atonement with Calvin's view of election.

Thanks too, Alastair, for your further explanation on assurance. I think I agree with more or less everything you say there but I'm not clear why you think this is incompatible with limited atonement.

Limited atonement doesn't require someone to have assurance that they are saved in order for them to be saved. I wonder if the whole 'limited atonement is harmful to assurance' argument is possibly a bit of a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the position.

By Chris Thomson, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:41:00 am
Michael, great to hear from you and from your sponsor Mr. Edwards.

If I recall rightly, John Owen's dissatisfaction with the 'sufficient for all' slogan was not the 'sufficient' bit but the 'for all' bit. That is, he was happy to affirm that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to have been a sacrifice for all had God intended it as such. But since that was not God's intention it is misleading to call it a 'sufficient sacrifice for all'.

I haven't got it in front of me, but I think Turretin makes a similar distinction between Christ's sacrifice being 'sufficient for all' when considered (a) as to its intrinsic worth and efficacy (which he affirms) and (b) as to its intent (which he denies).

Am I right in thinking that Edwards is endorsing 'sufficient for all / efficient for the elect' in this sense rather than the Amyraldian sense?

I wonder whether a less confusing summary of the Reformed position might be 'sufficient for any, efficient for the elect'. What does everybody think? I don't think I've seen it put like this before but it strikes me that this might be a formula we could all agree on.

By Chris Thomson, at Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:09:00 pm
Chris,

On Owen:
The infinite value of Christ’s death is based on his person and the hypostatic union. His blood is the blood of God, and is therefore of infinite value. Rutherford (a fairly strong Reformed type) writes in one of his letters about Christ’s sacrifice being sufficient for a thousand worlds. If we believe in Chalcedon and the hypostatic union then we must affirm this teaching. So I wouldn’t be happy with sufficient for any (though it is true, it is not to the point – sufficiency is a statement about the worth of Christ, not the mercy of God) – his self sacrifice is sufficient for all. This is the point made by Dordt (Head II, Art III: The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly to expiate the sins of the whole world), and it was certainly Calvin’s position (see his Commentary on 1 John 2:2).

Cf Owen, Works, 10, 295-296.

I’ll not prattle on about Owen – fine theologian that he was – I’ll just point you to Carl Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology, 199-226 which addresses many of the questions you have all been pondering.

On Turretin:
Yes – that is his point.

On Edwards:
Definitely, but I want to stress again that JE wouldn’t be keen on the term “Limited Atonement.” I haven’t come across it in my reading. He has a lot of surprisingly poetic material on the infinite value of Christ’s death. Christ offers up an infinitely valuable sacrifice – with a definite purpose – to save all those given to him by the Father. For both Owen and Edwards the eternal covenant of redemption is always the controlling paradigm. Christ is appointed Mediator for a specific people - who are specific people. (The sort with names that could be written in a book of life.)

We haven’t mentioned John Davenant yet – his works are really edifying, and he thinks the distinction between sufficient and efficient is meaningless. The English translation of his work is A Dissertation on the Death of Christ (London, 1832). The MTC guys should like him.

Thanks to Mandy for a splendid discussion.

I've put a link to JE on the covenant of redemption here

By Michael McClenahan, at Monday, June 05, 2006 1:53:00 am
Chris Thomson and I have had a 5 post (so far) discussion taking a closer look at Alastair's paradigm.

If you are interested click here :

http://icarusredeemed.blogspot.com/2006/06/limited-atonement-debate.html

By Celal Birader, at Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:42:00 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Chris Thomson, at Monday, June 19, 2006 1:31:00 am
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Chris Thomson, at Monday, June 19, 2006 1:31:00 am
The discussion seems to have petered out so I thought I'd offer some concluding reflections:

1. The question 'in what sense?' is an extremely useful one in theology. Rather than asking, 'is the atonement limited or universal?' we need to ask, 'in what sense, if any, is the atonement limited?' and 'in what sense is it universal?'

Similarly, it might have been helpful to ask 'in what sense does/doesn’t God will the salvation of all?'; 'in what sense will/won’t the whole world be reconciled to Christ?' and so on.

2. Many of the objections to limited atonement seem to arise from a failure to ask, 'limited in what sense'? After all, people who believe in 'limited atonement' also believe that the atonement is universal in a number of important respects. For example,
(a) Christ made atonement for all his people.
(b) Those people come from every nation, tribe and tongue.
(c) Christ made atonement for all their sins (including their unbelief).
(d) Christ's blood, being of infinite worth, is sufficient to pay for every sin of every person.
(e) On the basis of Christ's blood, we may freely offer salvation to all people and promise it to any who turn to him.

3. However, 'limited' atonement holds that Christ’s death was limited in the sense that it was not intended by God as payment for the sins of all people, but only of those who would actually believe and be saved.

4. In saying this, limited atonement aims to uphold God’s justice (he won't punish someone's sins twice) and the nature and effectiveness of the atonement (it is a genuine and effective substitution, redemption, propitiation etc.).

5. Various posts above show that the claim that limited atonement is a 'textless doctrine' does not stick. Nor does the claim that limited atonement depends on Aristotelian presuppositions which contradict Scripture.

6. No-one who upholds the Reformed doctrine of election but denies limited atonement has yet responded to the 14 arguments I listed above.

7. I was not intending to comment on Alastair's various long contributions, since (as I mentioned in an earlier comment), they seem to be directed primarily at unconditional election (in the Reformed sense) rather than limited atonement (the U of TULIP rather than the L). However, lest silence be taken for acquiescence let me make a couple of brief points.

Alastair claims that 'We become elect when we are united to Christ in history. We would cease to be elect if we were cut off from Him. The Book of Life is Christ. Those in Him are elect; those outside of Him are not.'

The problem with this is that Scripture describes the election before the foundation of the world of specific individuals to belong to Christ.

Thus the book of life has the names of specific individuals written in it from before the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; 17:8). See also Acts 13:48 Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:11.

Moreover I strongly disagree with Alastair's interpretation of John's gospel on this point. Jesus speaks of sheep who he already has but who are not yet part of the fold (John 10:16). This is hard to square with election taking place when people come to Christ.

Similarly, John 10:26 challenges the idea that Jesus' flock consists of those who already believe. He doesn't say 'you aren't my sheep because you don't believe' but 'you don't believe because you are not my sheep'.

Alastair's responses to these arguments on Celal's blog, show further, in my view, just how far he is from orthodoxy. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to carry on the discussion there.

8. Thanks to everyone for a stimulating discussion and to Mandy for hosting it.

By Chris Thomson, at Monday, June 19, 2006 1:39:00 am
Mandy, isnt it funny that your blog went from "the most boring blog in the world" to "the most exciting and controversial blog in the world" in the space of a few days? I wonder what your secrets are? What Oak Hill orthodoxies should I deny on my blog to really get the trafic going and the Moore boys involved? Ie where is Moore v right and we are v wrong and we all care v much?

By Marc Lloyd, at Monday, June 19, 2006 5:18:00 pm
'lest silence be taken for acquiescence'

I think Chris that you should certainly not take silence for acquiescence either.

By michael jensen, at Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:58:00 pm
*tiptoes in quietly, looks round and whispers* Is it safe for me to have the last word now?

Let's call it 'Effectual Atonement' to get over the negative connotations of being 'Limited'.

But let's be quite clear that Christ's death achieved exactly what it was intended to - the salvation of the elect, and only the elect. And can only be so, since only the elect are united with Christ in his death.

By Ros, at Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:13:00 pm
Hi,

This topic keeps on coming up again and again and I think is really good to keep us on our toes and revising the Bible. But you need to be carefull the pratical application of this doctrine, it can lead to hyper-calvinism. I noticed that stopped urging people to believe the gospel, I just share it(clearly, not sure about being powerfully) , that is, I found myself at odds with Paul's statement that "I be cursed for the sake of Israel(Rom.10)", I did not understand what he was talking about, how can you feel the emotional sorrow of the un-elect if there was limited atonement. I believe both is true, God wants all to be saved and God has the elect and leave at that. But I make sure that I don't become a Hyper-calvinism as I see observe that most "Sydney Anglican are becoming, well semi-hypercalvinist".

Tom

By Unknown, at Sunday, April 26, 2009 8:23:00 am

Mandy's Musings

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Can someone please remind me ...

127 Comments:

About

About Me

Some friends whose blogs I like to read

Previous