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.
Your basic Calvinist circular argument. Yaaaaawn.
RE: 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.
Then this preacher you mentioned does not follow the footsteps of the 5 pointers of the past. Men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield adhered to the 5 points, yet, passionately and consistently evangelized whenever they could. They were the preachers who evangelized the country during the Great Awakening period before the declaration of independence.
The towering figure of George Whitefield in the 18th Century should be sufficient to silence such a view once and for all. Whitefield did not have to engage in ‘double think’ - putting his Calvinist principles to one side while he got on with the practical task of evangelism; Whitefield’s deep doctrinal convictions provided the oxygen which enabled his evangelism to burn with such white hot intensity.
RE: Your basic Calvinist circular argument.
Can you elaborate further?
“Then this preacher you mentioned does not follow the footsteps of the 5 pointers of the past.”
I actually don’t think he’s following anything; he’s just lazy. Tiptoeing into this “Reformed Theology” thing helps him rationalize.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT GOD THAT IS “LIMITED”
John 10:25-29 (NASB95)
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand.
The ones that respond to the call are Jesus' sheep, given to Him by the Father, so that no man can snatch them out of the Father's hand. Thus, God's will is not thwarted, but fulfilled.
Good explanation. The price for sin MUST be paid. One can accept Jesus’ payment, by believing on Him, or one can pay for one’s sin, himself, by eternal damnation in Hell. It’s a choice. (BTW, in Matthew, the word perfect, means complete.)
The preacher is SO lazy that he gets his sermons from the internet. When my sis and I visited a couple summers ago we wrote down some of the phrases he said (read). Went to Google, entered the phrases along with “sermon”, and found a couple sermons that he plagiarized. Pathetic.
Let’s put it this way:
A store is providing free food samples to all who come by a kiosk today. Someone chooses to go and have the samples while another does not.
Tomorrow, the samples are no longer available to anyone.
All who put forth the effort profited from the opportunity, while all who put forth no effort or never heard of the opportunity lost the opportunity.
Yes, and the ones that came by the first day were motivated to do so.
In the case of the believer, the motivation comes from the Holy Spirit. For “as it is written, ‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;’” (Romans 3:10-11 (NASB95))
Because God gave the option to man of responding to His offer, whether they take it or not.
Scripture is clear that Jesus died not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2.
If there were sin yet unatoned for then sin would still have power somewhere and the power of sin would not be broken. At that point, the universe and everything in it could not be freed from the bondage of corruption that it’s under.
Atonement for all the sins of the world does not by default demand that everyone be saved whether they want to or not. It simply provides for the sin to be dealt with regardless of whether someone availed themselves of it or not.
All of the Scripture you have provided backs up what I am saying. Put this reference on for size.
John 3:14 - 21:
14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever [d]believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [e]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the [f]only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” [NASB95]
“(1) Election is Christocentric, i.e., election of humans occurs only in union with Jesus Christ. “He chose us in him” .... Christ, as the elect, is the foundation of our election. Only in union with Christ do we become members of the elect (Eph 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13). No one is elect apart from union with Christ through faith.....
(3) Election in Christ is primarily corporate, i.e., an election of a people (Eph 1:4-5, 7, 9). The elect are called “the body of Christ” (4:12), “my church” (Mt 16:18), “a people belonging to God” (1 Pe 2:9), and the “bride” of Christ (Rev 19:7). Therefore, election is corporate and embraces individual persons only as they identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the true church...
(4) The election to salvation and holiness of the body of Christ is always certain. But the certainty of election for individuals remains conditional on their personal living faith in Jesus Christ and perseverance in union with him...
(5) Election to salvation in Christ is offered to all (Jn 3:16-17; 1Ti 2:4-6; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9) but becomes actual for particular persons contingent on their repentance and faith as they accept God’s gift of salvation in Christ.... At the point of faith, the believer is incorporated into Christ’s elect body (the church) by the Holy Spirit (1 Co 12:13), thereby becoming one of the elect. Thus, there is both God’s initiative and our response in election (see Ro 8:29, note; 2 Pet 1:1-11)....
Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect.
Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ....
I could, but it would be endless back and forth arguments between myself and the Calvinists, with neither side convincing the other, and frankly, I have neither the time nor desire to get into it all. But, not to worry, I’m quite certain the FReepers on both sides will thoroughly cover the topic.
Actually, the biggest error by many Calvin’s is the belief in double predestination.
The author of this article offers a very convoluted argument. He initially cites a Charles Spurgeon quote without context.
If you want to to understand limited atonement and God’s will that all men be saved, here is a link to a Charles Spurgeon that lays it out in easy-to-understand language. Hyper-Calvinists hate it when I direct them to this sermon because it clearly refutes their belief in double predestination.
https://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.php
This idea of limited atonement is anathema. If limited atonement exists, then that means that God created men, knowing that some, no matter what, would be damned to hell. If that is true, that makes God the author of evil. His very nature does not allow Him to do evil. He may allow it to happen (Job) and may be “slow as some count slowness” in dealing with it, but He never DOES EVIL.
This type of doctrine causes people to, at a minimum, be uncertain of their salvation, and at its worst, makes them hopeless to the point of suicide. It takes the Gospel away from people and that is NEVER GOOD.
Signed, Another orthodox Lutheran. (and it’s nice to meet you, Cletus.)
Full 5 pointer here.. Limited atonement makes rational sense, but people cannot and will not believe unless the Spirit convinces them. Faith is a GIFT. And belief in the truth is GRANTED to Christ’s People (for whom He died). Arguments over the five points of Calvinism (aka, “The Gospel”) cannot convince anyone of the truth unless God uses it to open the hearts and minds of those that do not believe.
One of my favorite stories of effectual grace and calling is the story of Lydia. The Lord opened her heart, and she believed. (Act 16:14)
For folks that want to debate Scripture, I’m not here to debate anyone. I don’t CARE to debate anyone. If you want to know more about what I believe regarding these five points, here is the scripture.
Total Depravity of Man: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1148
Unconditional Election: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1149
Limited Atonement: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1150
Irresistible Grace: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1151
Perseverance of the Saints: https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1152
Grace and Peace!
Many, many years ago, I was a member of a Christian Reformed Church. In the back of their hymnal was a brief history of the Five points of Calvin’s, which was an argument against the Remonstrants.
In reading the arguments of the Arminians, I found them to be quite compelling, other than their claim that salvation could be lost.
I keep in mind that anything the Arminians were for, the Dutch Cavinists must be against. Those Dutchmen were a very stubborn lot.
However, it should be pointed out that the Christian Reformed Churh was the initial driving force behind the publishing of the original NIV Bible. Once they realized that the work would be far more difficult and expensive to complete, the New York Bible Society took over the work. The story of the creation and publication of the NIV is very interesting.
.
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.