Mark Driscoll set off a controversy among some of the reformed, whom he called, ”Young, nitpicking, theologically geeky, Calvinist crazy-makers who are like a rock in my shoe” when he preached his modified Calvinist position on the death of Christ which he calls “The unlimited, limited atonement.” Click to hear the sermon http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement.
Did Christ die for all people (unlimited atonement) or just believers, i.e., the elect (limited atonement)? Or was Christ’s atonement a unlimited, limited atonement?
There Are At Least Four Different Views
1. Universalism is the belief that all people eventually will go to heaven.
Why is this view wrong? The following references refute this view (Lk.16; Rev. 20:11).
Limited atonement people, however, accuse unlimited atonement people of Universalism. Limited atonement people quote Mt. 20:28 as proof. “For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life a ransom for many.”
No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is not sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, vol. 2 p. 548).
Dr. Bowman agrees that “ransom” in Mt. 20:28 with the preposition anti (in exchange for) used with ransom is limited to believers.
Soteriologicaly, the “many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) would be limited to only those set free by the purchase price . . . Therefore, this preposition anti is not necessarily a proof for universal provision as it views those only who are actually purchased. However, it does not exclude the fact that Christ’s death was in behalf of (or, for the benefit of ) others as will be discussed later (Dr. Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.25).
Dr. Bowman went on to discuss the preposition “huper” which does have a universal provision meaning as in 1 Tim. 2:6 where Paul said that Christ gave himself a ransom “for all men” (antilutron huper panton).
Paul combines the two words and uses the preposition huper which carries the idea of substitution as well as the connotation of benefit. Five-point Calvinists limit the panton (“all”) to a relative sense of all races (Jews and Gentiles) or to all kinds of men. But it is obvious that Paul is using anthropos in a generic sense as referring to mankind not classes or races. Compare the “all men” (vss. 2, 4) and “men” (v. 5) with the tous andras of verse 8. The panton modifies the noun (“men”). It would be rather unnecessary and redundant to say that God desires that all classes of men be saved (v.4) and that Christ is a mediator between God and all races or kinds of men (v.5). This is unnecessary as God’s decree is not necessarily concerned with races but with individuals (Dr. Bowman, pages 27, 28).
Here is how Millard Erickson answers this view:
Equally compelling is 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” This is to be compared with the original statement in Matthew 20:28, where Jesus had said that the Son of man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” In 1 Timothy, Paul makes a significant advance upon the words of Jesus. “His life” (tan psuchan autou) becomes “himself” (haeuton); the word is “ransom” (lutron) appears in compound form (antilutron). But most significantly here, “for many” (anti pollon) becomes “for all” (huper panton). When Paul wrote, the words of the tradition (i.e., as they appear in Matthew) may well have been familiar to him. It is almost as if he made a deliberate point of emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pages 830, 831).
These comments by Dr. Bowman and Erickson also refute the Five-point Calvinist’s definition of “all” meaning “all without distinction” verses the biblical definition of “all” which is “all without exception” in passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-6.
2. Arminianism is the belief that Christ died for all.
In 1609, the Five Arminian Articles or the Remonstrance were written by the followers of Jacob Arminius “in opposition to those parts of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism which stressed what came to be known as the five points of Calvinism, which were later set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p.36).
The Five Points of Arminianism
I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.
II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.
III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.
IV. This grace may be resisted.
V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. (Roger Nicole, “Arminianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 64).
Article II of the Five Arminian articles elaborates the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the work of the Gospel of John 3:16 (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III New York: Harper and Son Publishers, 1919).
Robert Lightner insightfully informs as to the true meaning of this apparently harmless statement and the importance of the word “obtained.”
The crucial point of this statement regarding the purpose and extent of the atonement centers in the word “obtained.” This is precisely the Arminian view, not only that Christ’s death provided salvation for all but that His death obtained it for all. This explains, of course, why Arminianism believes each member of Adam’s race possesses sufficient grace to be saved . . . this strikes at the very heart of that great Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do anything to merit favor before God . . . This means in reality that the decision to believe or not to believe is quite unrelated to the election purposes of God or the effectual working of the Holy Spirit but rests ultimately and entirely with the individual (The Death Christ Died, pages 37-40).
The sufficient grace of Arminianism is in contrast to efficacious grace of God or the effective calling of the Holy Spirit referred to by Ryrie in chapter 56 in Basic Theology.
3. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect.
The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.
This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.
The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 40).
What is ironic about the Calvinistic view of limited atonement is that Calvin did not hold to it. Here is a quote from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians: “God commends to us the solution of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Paul Hartog has written a new book on Calvin’s view of atonement where he documents Calvin’s view. Click here for a PDF http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf
Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect Dr. Bowman comments:
This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p. 5).
Most limited atonement advocates believe in some form of “double predestination.” “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed” (Calvin, Christian Institutes, 2:23).
The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more that the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settle is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4) (Phillip Johnson, Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism, www.spurgeon.org/-phil/articles/sup_infr.htm,p.1)
Condemnation in Scripture is based on the sinner’s actions of rejection, not God’s reprobation (2nd Thess. 1:8).
Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is use by unlimited redemptionist, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states.
Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Lightner, p.43).
1. Five point Limited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in the value of the atonement as just presented by Lightner. This view has the provision of Christ’s atonement only for the elect.
2. Driscoll’s Unlimited/limited Atonement is unlimited in the benefit of the atonement. The benefit of the atonement is similar to Common Grace which some of the Reformed men have accused him of teaching.
3. Unlimited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in provision for all. Driscoll never uses the word provision in his unlimited view and therefore I see his view as not fully Biblical. Only Unlimited Atonement has provision for all not just the elect.
4. Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the death of Christ accomplished two purposes: He provided the basis for the salvation of all people and He secured the salvation of believers.
The position is also referred to sometimes as Amyraldianism or three or four-point Calvinism.
In France the controversy continued largely around Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus) who taught at the Academy of Saumur and John Cameron who also taught for a short time at the same school. Both men did not believe in limited atonement. Amyraut became the theological father of four-point Calvinism . . . Such men as Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord could be classified as four-point Calvinists (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, pages 2 and 5).
“The Scriptures represents the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 771).
“Christ most certainly died to secure the salvation of those who believe and it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men” (Lightner, p. 46).
A. Biblical references that relate the atonement to believers only.
All five-point Calvinists inevitably foster to some degree a limitation upon kosmos references pertaining to the soteriological import. This limitation is usually shown by pointing out references (such as Luke 2:1; Jn. 1:10; 12:29; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6; Rev. 13:3, etc.) that cannot mean everyone within the world. Such limited redemptionists as Symington, Pink, Berkhof, and Shedd may be consulted. It must be conceded that such references as above, and others, could have such a limitation placed upon them (Bowman, p.30).
Hodge is an example of this reasoning: “Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all” (Charles Hodge, p. 549).
These passages do not state that Christ only died for believers. Because Christ died for the whole, He also died for a specific part. But to say that Christ only died for believers contradicts the universal passages. Isaiah 53:5 says that Christ died for Israel: “He was wounded for our transgression.” Does this mean that only Jews can be saved? Isaiah 53:6 says Israel was sinful: “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Is total depravity limited to Jews? Matthew 1:21 says that “Christ shall save his people from their sins.” Would limited redemptionists say that Gentiles cannot be saved because of this verse? In Galatians 2:20, Paul limited the death of Christ to himself: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Does this mean that Christ only died for Paul and none other because of the limitations of Galatians. 2:20?
B. There are verses that teach Christ died for all people.
Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that the Lord died for all people, even those who do not get saved, and thus, false teachers. Both Dr. Bowman and Charles Ryrie give extended explanations of this verse. Both Dr. Bowman and Ryrie state that limited redemptionists explain that this verse does say that the Lord “bought” the false teachers, but that this verse is what the false teachers claimed and Peter only recorded their denial. One example is Louis Berkhof.
The most plausible explanation of these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion? (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 397).
However, the normal sense of language has Peter stating the fact that these false teachers denied the Lord who paid for their sins on the cross, thus stressing the depth of their apostasy.
I like the way Robert Lightner ends his book The Death He Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement on page 148 with a proper conclusion and moment of worship of Christ our Savior, who died in our place, and the whole world.
The death Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father. It was a death which provided life for every member of Adam’s lost race who has ever lived or ever shall live—a death that made it possible for the Father to be just and at the same time the Justifier of any sinner who does nothing more that receive Christ as personal Savior.
I agree that the last paragraph sums up the whole issue: “The death of Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father.” Eph 2:13 states “brought near” vs. 14 – broken the wall of separation vs.19 – we are no longer strangers but members of the house of God.
Thanks Glenn for your comment.
It seems to me the Elect are elect ‘In Christ’, only so as they are viewed covered by His Righteousness.It is in Christ all the benefits of election flow of which Redemption is the major part and fountain. Thus atonement and election cannot be detached. You cannot be outside Christ yet enjoy redemtion. In my view Amyraldianism is a grievous misreading of Scripture. Its ‘election by bare decree’ evacuates the atonement and its saving benefits of their proper import as one must constantly read them in both a saving and non saving way- and logically this means the seat of salvation is NOT in the atonement at all. This I cannot but repudiate.
That said, I am quite at ease in asserting that certain of the non-saving benefits of redemtion flow to the non-elect.
I hold to the unlimited atonement view for the simple fact that Christ died for all. You did an amazing job of demonstrating this with 2 Peter 2:1.
It seems that you can never address the doctrines of election and the extent of the atonement without the other. It makes sense that when discussing them, you have to have the other, but it just makes the debate all the more heated. I get really careful when discussing these topics, because it is so easy for others to get offended. But when you think about it, the gospel is offensive (in a good way!) all on its own. The fact that we have to realize how dead and sinful we are; nobody wants to hear that. Then you look at these two doctrines and they can really make one question their freedom, and their God. Some look at these doctrines, and wonder how much freedom do they really have; did they choose to have their salvation or was it bound to happen since birth? Is God really live if some have been chosen to be saved and not all? It’s tough stuff. I think the Bible is very clear on what these doctrines do NOT teach. We know that universalism is out of the question. The Bible continually shows and proves that not all will be saved but many will. We do not know, and this should not dampen our efforts in evangelism. (Mk. 10:45, Romans 10:14-17, Ephesians 1:3-12). We also know what the atonement was meant to accomplish. I really like the way gotQuestions defines it: “The doctrine of limited atonement affirms that the Bible teaches Christ’s atoning work on the cross was done with a definite purpose in mind—to redeem for God people from every tribe, tongue and nation”. We know that the atonement was successful, and that through the death of Christ, we are able to come to God. He died for our sins (Matthew 1:21). “The doctrine of limited atonement also recognizes that the Bible teaches Jesus’ death on the cross was a substitutionary atonement for sins”. It’s facts like these, that are clearly laid out in scripture, that we typically, and hopefully can come to agreement with. But the questions arise when we look at who this was all meant for? How is one able to accept this gift? Once we look at the different viewpoints, we always, always ask why. It can be such a lengthy and tiresome debate. I think that your article does a great job of defining, and defending these tough topics. It is written in a way that really explains the basic of what we need to know about these issues, and guides the reader of the article to Biblical support. I really think that this is, yet another area, that we need to really exercise spiritual humility. We need to trust in what we know, and what is clear in a normal, literal translation of the scriptures. Letting what we want or think the bible is teaching will only lead to confusion and false doctrine.
Caitlin, you are right the Bible is offensive to those who do not know it, as for those who do it is a precious teaching like no other. It is hard to focus on one doctrine with out the simple acknowledgement of others at times. This doctrine is no exclusion, it would be good to know what you believe on election before looking at atonement, but at the same time election and atonement go hand in hand. What you believe of election will ultimately comprise your belief of limited/unlimited atonement.
You’re right. The doctrine of election and of the extent of atonement are really two sides of the same coin. You can’t talk of one without the other. You were right about something else as well, we must ultimately define these teachings from what the Word of God actually says and not from what is inferred by men.
I agree with you that these topics and scripture can be offensive. (in a good way) I mean think about it. If it were not, would we really be convicted about sin?
I think you were correct on another point too. This article informs the reader of the different views, but always points them back to scripture.
I agree with you that the doctrines of election and the extent of the atonement are intertwined. I also completely agree with you on the fact that we must let Scripture speak for itself. We should realize our knowledge compared to that of the Holy One, and only speak where Scripture speaks.
Growing up and learning from many errors which have kaleidoscope in the local churches I have attended, I have realized the necessity of not being “lukewarm” on this doctrine. Now I have to say that I have originally been drawn to a more calvinistic comprehension of our studied doctrines. However, I do now see that unlimited atonement is in keeping with the whole context of Scripture, even more so then that of limited atonement which seems to have contradictory passages because it teaches that Christ died for the elect but then what about those passages that speak of His death for the world? Knowing that their are no contradictions in His Word, and based on the facts of Scripture itself in its context, I have to say that the moderate calvinistic view of unlimited atonement is more conclusive.
Paul, I too lean more towards a Calvinistic viewpoint of this doctrine, along with others. But this is an issue within itself. We need to be aware that just because a person holds to a certain hermeneutic that we don’t ascribe too doesnt mean they are wrong. It also doesn’t mean they are right. And we also need to make sure that we ASK what exactly it is they believe. For example, just because I lean toward a more reformed doctrinal standpoint, does NOT mean I feel that evangelism is not required. Scripture is very clear on this, stating that we should go and obey. (Look at Matthew 28!). We have to be careful to not define a person by what their belief system is called.
Caitlin, never once did I say that I define people by their doctrine. Instead, I hold that all are sinners and deserving of Hell, which is why evangelism is very important. Also, it is true that this doctrine defines groups of people by their belief. This is a humanistic way of separating groups that do not believe the same… Why do you think that there are so many different (doctrinally) Baptist churches out there, not to mention all who claim to be Christians? Doctrine does define whether we like it or not, and I for one and glad it does! I am glad it does because I am a strong believer in separation, and believe that not all religions point to the One true God. As for my defining others by their doctrine, NO… I agree, it is not right, I instead think of everyone in a spiritual mindset… are you alive and born-again spiritually, to which I encourage in the Lord, or are you spiritually dead and in need of the gospel message to which is the power of God unto salvation? Rom. 1:16
This argument is endless! There have been volumes of books written by men much more educated than me in defense of both Arminianism and Calvinism. Personally, I’ve grown weary with all the creation of these different camps within what is supposed to be one family, the church. As for me, I read nowhere in scripture where anyone was concieved just to populate hell while there are many places in scripture that speak to salvation being available to all. Romans 1:16 for example that the gospel of Christ is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” Does it make sense that God knows who will and who won’t believe? Of course it does but God also could tell me what I’m going to eat tonight but right now I don’t know! Everything doesn’t have to make sense to us! Let’s get on with our job and make disciples, after all that’s what Christ told us to do.
Charles,
Apparently you and i think alot alike. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen but I am with you on this. I don’t what to detract from recognizing the importance of understanding limited\unlimited atonement. I am indeed learning it. My Bible (like yours) does not indicate that Hell has a reservation list, in fact, quite the opposite. Hell was created for ole Slewfoot and his angels, man is a foreign invader. Yes, I agree, an endless argument. But I believe it is necessary that we can defend our Biblical belief because there are many souls that have believed false teachings. You’re right, the business at hand is to be about His business, that is winning the lost. Much brighter men than I will no doubt continue this debate. Christ made a decision for mankind, the question is what will mankind decide about Christ.
Charles, you are right we need to get on board and start making disciples. Who cares what side I lean to all that matters is I believe in Christ and He said “Go and make Disciples” and “Be fishers of men” not I’m right and your wrong. The people going on and on about this issue have seems to miss the point of what we are truly here on this earth for. When it comes to a point that is true is that Christ is the only way in “I am the way the truth and the life no know comes to the Father except through me”
I’m with you, Charles. If boggles my mind why people can’t just read the scriptures for what they are. Sure, there are vast depths of truth to discover in them, but we must remember that each of these documents were written from one person to another with that express purpose that his writing was understood. The author of every book wrote in words that he knew his reader would understand. Simply put, while it is a book written by God, if we’re not careful, we can over mystify it and problems like the one you mentioned–wildly extreme views on the same passages of scripture–arise.
I have to say that this is a controversial topic. I had been taught about these areas before but had never really had to use it until recently. Recently, I got into a discussion, about this with a gentleman I work with the other day, but the topic had a twist. Part of the discussion haad to do with the security of the believer, but the other part had to do with whether all could be saved? He posed the question, “Can anyone be saved, even those who have done the worst things (murder, etc.)?” kinda like can a serial killer on death row still be saved? I told him yes and took him to scripture, showing him that Christ’s death was for all, but he thinks that since anyone can accept even after all that, he doesn’t want to be a part of it. any suggestions as to how I should respond?
Charles, it seems to me that this man is concerned with the sinner (murderer, etc) getting away “scot-free” from the penalty of his sins. He sees it as an easy way out and he thinks that sinner should have t suffer and pay for his sins. Yet the thing is, nobody gets away scot-free from their sins. Each sin is paid for through the suffering of Christ Jesus on the cross. Maybe you could show this gentleman how Jesus did suffer and pay for each murderer’s sin and that Jesus can only offer forgiveness because of this payment of sin.
Charles, I actually have been in a similar situation recently with a teenager that asked, why should I accept Christ right now if I can do whatever I want and get saved later? People like this only look at to see how to get to heaven, but not using their life here on earth to serve Christ. What i did was, I gave him an example of someone he knows. I asked him what he would do if his dad gave his life for him? He said he’d never forget it, and would live the rest of his life trying not to let his dad down. Exactly, Christ died for our sins and so once we accept Him, we shouldn’t want to ever let Him down! Just like you not wanting to let your dad down. We should live for the One who gave it all. I’ll be praying for you and your co-worker.
So all this just seems like people just want to be right and prove that they are right. With this we get so caught up in these debates and for what to prove who has the most knowledge (and we definitely lost that because God has all the knowledge). To many times as humans we want someones else to tells what the Bible says instead of going to the Word ourself. In Proverbs 8:10-11 “Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her” (NIV). To me God is telling us that He has the wisdom and the knowledge and it is better than and thing. Better than being lazy and letting other people tell you what God is saying. This people who are telling us these things like limited or unlimited atonement is not a bad thing but it is there words, humans words and not God’s Words. We should go to Him if we have these questions and spend more time on witnessing and bring people to God which is the Great comission that Jesus spoke before He acended. We are here on this earth for a reason and that reason is to worship and praise the Creator God. We should stop keeping Him a secert and start spearding His love to those who need it.
Scriptural support for the debate of Unlimited Atonement verses Limited Atonement is vastly in favor of Unlimited Atonement. These scriptures include II Peter 2:1, I John 2:2, I Timothy 2:4-6 and 4:10, Hebrews 2:9, John 3:16, and Acts 17:30 (Ryrie 369-372). While scriptural support for Limited Atonement includes verses such as John 10:15 and Ephesians 5:25 (Ryrie 368). To try and equate these verses to say that Christ’s atoning death was limited only to the “elect” is to really stretch these verses and make them say what you want them to say rather than the true exegetical meaning of the passage. On the topic of Universalism, this view cannot be true because we have all known someone who died without accepting Christ as their Savior. It is just common sense to believe that not every single person in the world will accept Christ. Not every person in the world has even heard of Christ. But that is another debate all in itself. Christ’s death did indeed provide a provision for salvation to all people, everywhere. Yet, it is up to each individual person to apply that means of salvation to their life through faith (Ryrie 373). God will draw each person to Himself, but it is up to that individual to come. Christ will stand at the door and knock, but it is up to each person to open that door and allow Him to come into their life and be their Lord and Savior. Even though a means of salvation is provided for each person, unless each individual applies that salvation to their life, through faith, they will die with their sins unforgiven (Ryrie 373).
I was unaware that there were so many different views when it comes to limited or unlimited atonement along with redemption. One thing that i found interesting while reading this blog was that Calvin did not hold to the limited atonement view like many other Calvinists. In fact, he believed quite the opposite. He actually said that God dying on the cross was for “all” men, not just those elected by God. Though many will not choose Christ, they still will have been given the chance because Christ died for their sins like everybody else’s.
I personally believe in unlimited atonement! I like the two explanations you give Dr. White concerning unlimited atonement. Christ dying, secured a place for us in heaven as Christians, but it also gives people a change to accept Christ here on earth. There will be many people I believe when they get to heaven that will say, ” Well, I went to church and read my Bible and did all the traditional and ritualistic things that you’re suppose to do”. Many people are lost and sadly don’t even know it. However, Christ died on the cross for them as well. If they could earn their way to heaven, He would not have had to die on the cross! As stated toward the end, we need to keep a lookout for false teachers, because they deny Christ in their lives, and try and “convince” us slowly to deny Him as well.
This is a great post. I have struggled with this concept for a long time. It is such a difficult topic to understand. I can however rule out universalism, which is a step towards the truth I suppose. As far as atonement goes, I would say that from my studies so far I am leaning towards an unlimited atonement. Christ’s death was and is sufficient to cover all sins, but there is a difference between universal atonement and universal salvation.
Nicely put! I have never heard it said that way believe it or not. a difference between salvation and atonement are definately there.
I have allways struggled with his issue! and i cannot wait till the day i get to heaven and i ask how it worked! How does God know all but give us a choice as to whether we want to be saved or not!
First of all, universalism holds no ground in the mind of anyone who seriously studies Scripture. Obviously the Bible teaches that there is a hell and that not all will go to heaven (Rev. 20:11). It is also incorrect to accuse those who hold unlimited atonement to be universalists, as this is not what the concept is referring to. I agree with Erickson’s quote dealing with 1 Timothy 2:6. I agree with the two-fold purpose found in the unlimited atonement view. It seems to be the logical conclusion from the biblical proof.
The proofs from Bowman and Erickson aid in giving an answer to those who accuse those who hold to unlimited atonement of being universalists. I wonder, however, if proponents of limited atonement would turn Erickson’s argument of Paul “emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose,” saying that he is elevating Paul’s words above Christ’s and, in a since, nullify his argument. That came to my mind soon after reading it.
The ultra-Armenian is seen in the point provided by Roger Nicole concerning the perseverance of the saints. A mentor of mine once warned me of focusing too much on particular areas of scripture to the exclusion or confusion of other areas. Including himself in this concept, he reminded me that we all have our tendencies, which can guide us to tremendous understanding of certain doctrines; and it would seem that the LORD does reveal or grant deeper understanding of certain issues to some as opposed to others. However, on the flip-side of this theological coin, one’s affinity of certain theological studies can lead to wrongly applying principles to other areas of theology. That’s what comes to mind when I see the extreme soteriological positions of five point Calvinism and ultra-Armenianism.
Thanks for including the quote stating Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement. I’ve always heard that Calvin didn’t hold to the Calvinism of today, but I’ve never seen proof of this until just now.
The arguments asking whether of not Christ’s death sufficient only to Israel or Paul are great for addressing the points made by the limited camp when they say that certain passages only refer to a few rather than all.
The quotes from Lightner’s book are also very helpful. Is his book carried at the PBC bookstore?