Posted on 05/24/2021 7:16:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When it comes to which of the five points of Calvinism that irk non-reformed Christians the most, my money is on limited atonement. The doctrine of limited atonement teaches that Christ's redeeming work on the cross secured an actual salvation for only the elect of God.
If this causes you to grind your teeth in irritation, stop. I’m going to show you why you probably already believe in limited atonement and then provide what I believe to be the definitive argument that puts the issue to bed once and for all.
Unless you’re a universalist, you already believe in limited atonement. That’s right – if not everyone is saved, then the atonement has to be “limited”.
How is it limited? It is limited to believers only: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Technically, this is called limited in extent, meaning limited in who it applies to. Christ’s death saves every person that it meant to save and doesn’t make salvation a mere possibility, which would be limited in effect.
So, as I said, you likely already believe in limited atonement in general without knowing it. Charles Spurgeon puts it like this: “[They] say Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by that. Did Christ die to secure the salvation of all men? They say no, certainly not…Did Christ die to secure the salvation of any one person in particular? They say no, Christ has died that any man may be saved if … and then follow certain conditions of salvation.”
John Owen wrote what is perhaps the most definitive work on Christ’s atonement in “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. In that book, Owen delivers what I believe is the knockout punch to anyone who opposes limited atonement. Let me quote his argument in full and then let’s work through it a little at a time:
“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . . If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will”.
“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.
Owen says we have three options: either Jesus died on the cross for (1) all the sins of everyone; (2) all the sins of a particular group of people; (3) some of the sins of everyone. He then proceeds to work through those possibilities.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved.
Working backwards, Owen quickly jettisons the third option because, if everyone still has some sins that have not been atoned for, no one will spend eternity with God. Impossible to disagree with, wouldn’t you say?
If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.
The second option Owen presents is limited atonement – that Jesus only died for God’s chosen people and took upon Himself all their sins. Such a position ensures an actual salvation for that group of people because all their sins were placed on Christ at the cross and they have nothing left for which to atone.
If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?
Option 1 is what many Christians believe – that Jesus took upon Himself, at the cross, all the sins of everyone who ever lived or will live. But Owen asks a good question: if that’s the case, then why isn’t everyone saved?
Outside of universalism, no one believes all will be saved and this includes those not upholding the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. And it is these people that Owen addresses next.
You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’
The ever-famous John 3:16, which I’ve already quoted, limits the atonement to only those who believe – a point that showcases the truth that all Christians really believe in limited atonement in one form or another. But then Owen asks an important follow up question:
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
This inquiry marks the beginning of the end for anyone who attempts to deny the doctrine of limited atonement. The answer, of course, is yes. Paul flatly says, “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). The writer of Hebrews, describing faithless Israel, also says, “So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief” (Heb. 3:19).
But Owen works through the possibilities, nonetheless.
If not, why should they be punished for it?
If unbelief is not a sin, Owen says then there is no reason for it to bar anyone from God’s presence.
If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.
If unbelief is a sin (and we have seen that it is), then it was either one of the sins that Christ died for, or it was not. So, either unbelieving people still have something for which to answer to God or they don’t.
If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?
This logical conclusion is the deathblow for anyone claiming that Christ died for all the sins of everyone, but that unbelief keeps a person from eternal life. Owen says if unbelief is a sin, and if Christ died for ALL the sins of everyone born of human parents, then that sin must be included in the mix and labeled as one for which Christ died. Unbelief, as a sin, could not keep anyone from spending eternal life with God more than any other sin for which Jesus paid.
If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.
If someone wants to say that Christ did not die for a person’s unbelief, and unbelief is a sin, then Jesus did not die for all his or her sins. Thus, a person cannot make the claim that Jesus died for all the sins of the world (with “world” being defined as every human being ever born).
Let them choose which part they will.
This is polite 17th century language for saying, “Checkmate”.
Owen convincingly shows that options 1 and 3 are untenable, with the only option remaining being the doctrine of limited atonement.
In his book entitled, The Nature of the Atonement, John McLeod Campbell explains how the only alternative becomes one where Christ’s atonement is limited. Recounting the just-covered John Owen’s summary of the case, Campbell concludes, “As addressed to those who agree with him as to the nature of the atonement, while differing with him as to the extent of its reference, this seems unanswerable.”
I agree.
Any scripture plucking[1] or other arguments fall short of undercutting the biblical logic behind limited atonement. Truth be told, most attempts are emotional in nature and boil down to a “not fair” contention.
But here’s the thing: as Christians, we often quote Is. 55:18, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways” and we rest in it until it comes to matters like this. Then we expect God’s ways to be our ways.
But Proverbs 50:21 says simply, “You thought that I was just like you”, meaning He’s not just like us. Whatever superficial feelings we have about God’s plan of salvation being not fair are misplaced.
Dr. James White speaks to the simplicity and beauty of Christ’s atonement when he says, “In its simplest terms the Reformed belief is this: Christ’s death saves sinners. It does not make the salvation of sinners a mere possibility. It does not provide a theoretical atonement … Christ’s death saves every single person that it was intended to save.”
I’m good with that. Are you?
[1] E.g., 1 John 2:2; John 12:32; 2 Pet. 2:1 by themselves and not viewed within the whole of Scripture.
Robin Schumacher is an accomplished software executive and Christian apologist who has written many articles, authored and contributed to several Christian books, appeared on nationally syndicated radio programs, and presented at apologetic events. He holds a BS in Business, Master's in Christian apologetics and a Ph.D. in New Testament. His latest book is, A Confident Faith: Winning people to Christ with the apologetics of the Apostle Paul.
God's people are those who follow Him.
You can be one of His people, if you truly come to Him. He calls all to follow Him, but not all will.
In this way, not even God gets His Will.
:: Owen says we have three options: either Jesus died on the cross for (1) all the sins of everyone; (2) all the sins of a particular group of people; (3) some of the sins of everyone. ::
Owens lectures Jesus the God-Man of His options?
Really?
I’m betting that Owens really wishes HE were at the foot of Cross to recite these options for Jesus to choose just be He died.
Signed: Cletus, the orthodox Lutheran
I have been working this particular argument in my mind for many years, and have come to a very crucial point in the argument.
Did Christ die for all men’s (people’s) sins; or did Christ die for all sins?
Ultimately, did Christ die for all sins which exist or possibly exist?
Quote
John Owen wrote what is perhaps the most definitive work on Christ’s atonement...
Called the Bible?
Silly satan deceived humans..
“Any scripture plucking[1] or other arguments fall short of undercutting the biblical logic”
This is the core debate I have over Calvinism. I like it because it’s rigorously rational in it’s understanding of faith and salvation.
Yet it fails because the Bible itself does not take such an approach and what you call scripture plucking often undermines it.
The only way I see option one working is if “all are saved from death”, but only those that follow Christ will be in his government in the coming age.
I’m not saying I believe that. I’m saying that is the only way I see it working. But I also understand that now we see as through a glass darkly. ;)
*sip sip* Enjoying my morning coffee.
Jesus died for all. All rejected him. He then chose to save some. Atonement is available to all.
That said - you can argue otherwise... it all comes out in the wash at the end.
*sip sip*
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 12:48: The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
Some religious writer just can’t contain their deceptive zeal, no matter what.
John 3:16 is not limiting salvation to believers as a subset of humanity, it obviously is stating that once non-believers become believers, they obtain salvation. That is why Jesus warned that PEOPLE who reject him will be judged on the last day. Jesus is NOT saying that people who were ordained by God to not accept Jesus will be judged on the last day.
Non-Calvinists accept the Biblical concept that Jesus died for the sins of humanity, and that some of that humanity will reject that sacrificial death on their own volition, as in the admonishment of Moses — “choose you this day who you will serve.”
When it comes to which of the five points of Calvinism that irk non-reformed Christians the most, my money is on limited atonement.
Oh, they all do. Except usually "once saved always saved". (Note the deliberate mischaracterization of the perseverance of the saints.)
Then you make God a liar, for He says:
Isaiah 46:9-11 (NASB95)
9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; [I am] God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned [it, surely] I will do it.
Scripture says:
All means all. All people, all time ("whosoever", pre Christ, post Christ, all) The gift came to all men.
But the pardon is not forced. The gift was to all men, but men still have the choice to accept it or not.
There is only one sin that remains. Failure to believe in Him. For this you are condemned. And you will remain condemned unless and until you put your faith in Him. And once you do that, there is no condemnation.
If you put your trust in Jesus before you die, then there is no condemnation for you (Rom 8:1). Your sins are covered.
But if you refuse. If your remain in darkness unwilling to come to the light. Then you will be judged on your own works. And because you have committed evil. You have already been condemned. Your only hope is a pardon. And one has been offered to you.
There is no good you can do to make up for your evil. For if you knew something was good, it is only what you should have done.
Our goal is to "Be holy for I am holy" Lev 19:2, "Be perfect for I am perfect" Matt 5:48. God doesn't judge on a Bell curve of Humanity, where if you are closer to Mother Theresa than to Adolf Hitler, then you are okay. Nor does God judge on the Islamic scales of justice, where if your deeds are 51% good or more, then you are okay. We are required to be perfect.
Two ways to heaven. Never sin or be forgiven. And all have sinned. All have come short of the glory of God.
Does God call all to follow Him, or not?
The problem with the Israelites during the time of the Judges was that “everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” People who reject Calvin’s commentary of the Gospel want to reserve the right to decide what Elohim can do, instead of discerning what He wants them to do. How could Isaiah write done the name of Cyrus and what Cyrus would do 150 years before Cyrus was born if the arc of history was not under Elohim’s control?
Think of the Universe in terms of statistical thermodynamics. An individual molecule can go anywhere it wants in the vessel that contains it until it runs into the wall, or another molecule. What do all the prophets say? “He is the Potter, we are the Clay!”
The half point comes because I don't see strong biblical support for limited atonement, so I could abandon it. However, there is some biblical support which when combined with logic makes a decent but not completely compelling argument, IMO.
It's a bit of an irrelevant debate in my mind because both a Calvinist and an Arminian would agree that if someone sincerely asked God for His grace, he or she will receive it.
Limited Atonement = where Calvinists and Jehovah’s Witnesses converge. :)
Philosophy, which the author relies on, has been the ruination of the church, and the path to liberalism.
Mom’s preacher went full five-pointer about five years ago. It was convenient for him, being the lazy person he is. No more calling on people. No more evangelists brought in for special meetings. His wife even removed a sign Mom put up that says, “God answers prayer.”
We urge her to find another church, but she won’t leave. Our family were founders of it in the 1700s so she’s connected. She knows better, too, being a preacher’s wife for over 50 years. She needs to GO.
RE: Philosophy, which the author relies on
Can you elaborate a little further on this? I do not read this article as the author relying on Philosophy to the detriment of scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.