This is one of the most problematic doctrines and one that divides earnest and sincere believers. As Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity." There is room for debate on the doctrine and like eternal security, there are proof-texts for both sides: Please read on with an open mind.
The issue in question and open to debate is this: Did the Atonement make possible the salvation of all, or the salvation of the elect certain? Specifically: Is faith a work of man (as Rome and Arminians assert) or the gift of grace? Or Does God save us, or enable us to save ourselves? Was Christ's work of redemption accomplished in toto on the cross? R. C. Sproul has made this the crux of the matter. It is the issue argued at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that condemned the Remonstrants who objected to the Reformed position, better known as the Calvinist's schema.
To put things in perspective, it is not your grasp of the deeper truths of the Bible, but your personal application that matters: You must believe that Jesus died and rose again for you personally to be saved. Remember the hymns: "Amazing love! how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me" and "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." "Alas! and did my Savior bleed? And did my Sovereign die? Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?" It is not your theory or apprehension of the doctrine of the Atonement that saves you. I reiterate it takes faith to believe that he not only died but lives in victory for you individually, not to apprehend a doctrine.
As you will see there is a problem in semantics, because both Arminian and Reformed views limit the Atonement in some respect and the terminology limited and unlimited Atonement (sometimes referred to as General Atonement) are insufficient to describe what happens on the cross. Both sides agree that there is no universal atonement that saves all. The problem begins with the definition of atonement, which is also translated propitiation and reconciliation and even expiation--it depends upon what you are focusing on: the divine or the human side, the positive and negative aspect, one's righteousness or sin.
Calvinists, or theologians of the "Reformed" tradition, believe in the so-called "limited atonement" [better referred to as "definite atonement" (or particular redemption)--Atonement means satisfaction or to set things right and make amends (between God and man)--because "definite" implies that God has a design or purpose behind what He was doing--He always does!] and this belief in a limited atonement is a misnomer, (Arminians believe in "unlimited atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice covered everyone's sins--note that they were also known as the Remonstrants were condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618, which created a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe). They have limited the Atonement [also in covering every sin but the unpardonable one--that is why unbelievers go to hell!]: they say that when Christ said "Tetelestai" or "It is finished," [not "I am finished," implying it waited for our cooperation and synergistic effort of ratification by a work of faith] that it wasn't finished completely. In other words, He wasn't saving anyone, but only making salvation possible; it would have been possible that no one got saved. [This was their articulated position at the Synod of Dort.]
Does God actually have a design and purpose for atonement or not? Actually, God finished salvation's work on the cross (He didn't say, "I am finished, but "It is finished.") and He ratified it on our behalf as His elect. "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9)--i.e., it is not a cooperative venture but completely the work of God who gets all the glory. "The Lord knows those who are His." You're either limiting the extent (to whom it reaches) or the purpose of the Atonement. God doesn't leave anything to chance. Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
I postulate that Christ's atonement is sufficient for everyone who has faith in Christ, and no one can claim that they are on the "wrong list," as it were. "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends." "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." You are either limiting the extent of the atonement (for whom) or its sufficiency and adequacy. What they commonly assert is that the atonement is "sufficient for all, but efficient for some" or taking effect for the elect only--saying we receive or accept God's salvation to certify or complete it. We must personally appropriate His substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.
If it avails for all, then you have a proof-text for universalism, as 1 John 2:2 (NIV) proclaims: "For He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse actually means that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world and ipso facto no one has an excuse because of it--specifically, salvation is not just for the Jews, who thought it was just for them. But Christ died "...that he might taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9).
The omniscience of God assures us that God knows those who are His and who will believe and who wouldn't believe. We are limiting God by saying that He waits for our ratification to complete the work. God doesn't just see ahead who will be saved and elect them (prescient view) but elects us unto faith. "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39). If we study Rom. 8:29-30 to study the golden chain of redemption we can see that all that God calls get saved ("And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified."), and this is not the case with us, because the general call we give in evangelizing sometimes falls on deaf ears. as opposed to God's inner call that never gets rejected because of irresistible grace, and Christ gets rejected.
We are assured that anyone who believes or has genuine saving and living faith will be saved. The only thing standing in the way of a believer is his lack of faith in receiving the free gift of eternal life in Christ by grace. No one will be able to blame Christ for their condemnation! Let me conclude that no one is saved by their theory of the Atonement; There are indeed pious believers on both sides of this issue. Soli Deo Gloria!
The issue in question and open to debate is this: Did the Atonement make possible the salvation of all, or the salvation of the elect certain? Specifically: Is faith a work of man (as Rome and Arminians assert) or the gift of grace? Or Does God save us, or enable us to save ourselves? Was Christ's work of redemption accomplished in toto on the cross? R. C. Sproul has made this the crux of the matter. It is the issue argued at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that condemned the Remonstrants who objected to the Reformed position, better known as the Calvinist's schema.
To put things in perspective, it is not your grasp of the deeper truths of the Bible, but your personal application that matters: You must believe that Jesus died and rose again for you personally to be saved. Remember the hymns: "Amazing love! how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me" and "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." "Alas! and did my Savior bleed? And did my Sovereign die? Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?" It is not your theory or apprehension of the doctrine of the Atonement that saves you. I reiterate it takes faith to believe that he not only died but lives in victory for you individually, not to apprehend a doctrine.
As you will see there is a problem in semantics, because both Arminian and Reformed views limit the Atonement in some respect and the terminology limited and unlimited Atonement (sometimes referred to as General Atonement) are insufficient to describe what happens on the cross. Both sides agree that there is no universal atonement that saves all. The problem begins with the definition of atonement, which is also translated propitiation and reconciliation and even expiation--it depends upon what you are focusing on: the divine or the human side, the positive and negative aspect, one's righteousness or sin.
Calvinists, or theologians of the "Reformed" tradition, believe in the so-called "limited atonement" [better referred to as "definite atonement" (or particular redemption)--Atonement means satisfaction or to set things right and make amends (between God and man)--because "definite" implies that God has a design or purpose behind what He was doing--He always does!] and this belief in a limited atonement is a misnomer, (Arminians believe in "unlimited atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice covered everyone's sins--note that they were also known as the Remonstrants were condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618, which created a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe). They have limited the Atonement [also in covering every sin but the unpardonable one--that is why unbelievers go to hell!]: they say that when Christ said "Tetelestai" or "It is finished," [not "I am finished," implying it waited for our cooperation and synergistic effort of ratification by a work of faith] that it wasn't finished completely. In other words, He wasn't saving anyone, but only making salvation possible; it would have been possible that no one got saved. [This was their articulated position at the Synod of Dort.]
Does God actually have a design and purpose for atonement or not? Actually, God finished salvation's work on the cross (He didn't say, "I am finished, but "It is finished.") and He ratified it on our behalf as His elect. "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9)--i.e., it is not a cooperative venture but completely the work of God who gets all the glory. "The Lord knows those who are His." You're either limiting the extent (to whom it reaches) or the purpose of the Atonement. God doesn't leave anything to chance. Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
I postulate that Christ's atonement is sufficient for everyone who has faith in Christ, and no one can claim that they are on the "wrong list," as it were. "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends." "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." You are either limiting the extent of the atonement (for whom) or its sufficiency and adequacy. What they commonly assert is that the atonement is "sufficient for all, but efficient for some" or taking effect for the elect only--saying we receive or accept God's salvation to certify or complete it. We must personally appropriate His substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.
If it avails for all, then you have a proof-text for universalism, as 1 John 2:2 (NIV) proclaims: "For He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse actually means that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world and ipso facto no one has an excuse because of it--specifically, salvation is not just for the Jews, who thought it was just for them. But Christ died "...that he might taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9).
The omniscience of God assures us that God knows those who are His and who will believe and who wouldn't believe. We are limiting God by saying that He waits for our ratification to complete the work. God doesn't just see ahead who will be saved and elect them (prescient view) but elects us unto faith. "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39). If we study Rom. 8:29-30 to study the golden chain of redemption we can see that all that God calls get saved ("And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified."), and this is not the case with us, because the general call we give in evangelizing sometimes falls on deaf ears. as opposed to God's inner call that never gets rejected because of irresistible grace, and Christ gets rejected.
We are assured that anyone who believes or has genuine saving and living faith will be saved. The only thing standing in the way of a believer is his lack of faith in receiving the free gift of eternal life in Christ by grace. No one will be able to blame Christ for their condemnation! Let me conclude that no one is saved by their theory of the Atonement; There are indeed pious believers on both sides of this issue. Soli Deo Gloria!
A problem might appear when one doesn't understand the word "atonement." Christ may have actually "suffered" for everyone's sins and tasted death for everyone, but in the final analysis, if he made atonement or set things right for everyone, then everyone is saved and you have universalism. When he entered the Holy of Holies in heaven he redeemed his sheep with his blood: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
ReplyDeleteChrist died to make an offer to all sincerely: "For the grace of God has appeared, offering salvation to all" (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement may also be called particular redemption, in light of God's divine purpose or plan.
ReplyDeleteProof-texts for the Reformed view used are these: "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11). And "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). "No greater love has man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."
ReplyDeleteThere is contention to be had by the law of double jeopardy, seeing if God really punished Christ for everyone's sins, then how can he do it again in hell? For the offer to be genuine, must God pay everyone's penalty, or does He not have foreknowledge of who will be saved? The Lord knows those who are His, and we don't.
ReplyDeleteThere are verses that Arminians use: "Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world." "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the whole world." (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). The problem arises from translation of cosmos or world (which has 7 meanings) Christ is the only way of salvation for the whole world and the Gentile world is included in the salvation plan, contrary to popular Jewish thought.
ReplyDelete"He gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6). One must differentiate the meanings of all inclusive and all exclusive meaning all of us and all meaning everyone. All kinds of people were involved and all of us elect are included in the Atonement.
ReplyDeleteArminians will affirm that Christ died for all of our sins, believer or not and asked why some end up in judgment, they assert that Christ died for all sins except the unforgivable one, which they say is rejecting Christ (actually not biblical according to Matthew 12:32); but they say that it is because of that they they are condemned: The average Christian has rejected Christ 7.6 times before finally accepting him, to how can this sin be unforgivable; and there will be man in hell who have never heard and never rejected, but are there for breaking their own conscience and personal standards.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whether the Atonement covers all sin (except, of course, the unforgivable sin), but is God sovereign over salvation and is our destiny ultimately in His hands, or does man have sovereign control over who gets saved and God sacrifices His sovereignty for man to have this so-called freedom to choose apart from God's grace. The issue is plainly the sovereignty of God and whether one is able to trust in it or not.
ReplyDelete1 Tim 2: 6 ("He gave himself a ransom for all") can have many interpretations: Jesus is the only way of salvation for everyone; He made paid the ransom price to redeem all of us (His church); He died for all kinds of sinners; He ransomed everyone (universalism).
ReplyDeleteThe General call goes out to all to repent, but God's call goes out to the elect per the Golden Chain of Redemption in Romans 8:29-30. There is an inner and and outer call. "For the gospel is for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).
ReplyDeleteThe ransom spoken of in 1 Tim. 2:6 is also mentioned in Mark 10:45 as "ransom for many" and Christ "bore the sin of many" in Isaiah 53:12 (NOT ALL, BUT MANY). This needs to be reconciled.
ReplyDelete