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.
The pivot point in Owens argument is that he presupposes that WE (mankind) have 3 rational choices...or else.
Anthrocentric theology is no theology at all.
- Stefanski
All theology is Christology.
- Scaer
Read the Spugeon sermon I linked in my post #36. That should help you understand.
Those links present a Hyper-Calvinist viewpoint.
Even Calvin believed in common grace.
....or, how about the misguided Pastor has to GO... and the church gets back on the plumb line! ... ymmv
Read the Spugeon sermon link I posted in #36. Spurgeon is a Calvinist hero, but many Calvinist don’t want to accept what Spurgeon teaches on thi issue.
The Spirit calls, but does not “convince” anyone.
I do not understand how “faith” can be a “gift.” Surely, it is not listed as a “spiritual gift” provided by the Holy Spirit, of which no one has all the gifts.
Of course, you could say one has the gift of tongues but has no gift of faith, but that seems inherently ingenuous to most people.
You’re saying God’s will is thwarted. None of the passages I’ve quoted or you have quoted shows that.
If He commands all men everywhere to repent, then yes, He does call all to follow Him. And He provided the means by which anyone, no matter what status they are in life, can come to Him. There is no excuse for rejecting Christ.
Acts 17:26-27 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Acts 17:29-31 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
I never said God’s Will is “thwarted,” you did.
God literally wants everyone in the world to follow Him, but He knows they all won’t.
You claim God does not want everyone to follow God, which is a lie.
No, I claimed that if God wills it, it will be done.
As to your point, God knows who His sheep are and are not.
That’s the best option. However, since the basics, distinctives of the denomination, theology, etc., haven’t been truly taught in decades, members don’t know what they don’t know. They don’t know the preacher is off the rails. Mom is the only one left with a solid Biblical foundation, and she has little power. She’s 96, and others don’t really listen to her much.
Satan is powerful.
You did not use those words. You said, "In this way, not even God gets His Will." But that sounds like God's Will is thwarted.
Did God demand (Will) Adam and Eve to not eat the apple?
Did God get his Will, or are you going to tell us He never intended Adam and Eve to not eat that apple of sin, because he made them not follow Him?
Was God surprised by Adam and Eve eating the fruit of Tree of Knowledge? Or did He know that they would?
Also, was salvation through Christ “Plan B”?
Again, I ask: Did God get his Will when Adam and Eve disobeyed his direct Command and ate the apple?
Yes. Satan intended the fall for evil, but God used it for good and His glory. No different than Joseph’s brother selling him into slavery.
Christ’s atonement was never “Plan B”.
No, God did not get His Will when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him.
So, are you saying the atonement was Plan B?
Men like Abraham followed God joyously within the sin-laden world Adam and Eve left behind and without the Law. Noah came along and, despite the cleansing flood, sin still abounded. Maybe the flood was another “plan” (B?) that didn't clean the world as it should have. As Genesis 6:5–7 says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.’”
Man failed God, man continued to fail God despite the Law, with which the Law was likely “Plan C.”
Each time, until Christ, we are told that God is saddened and regrets what He did or allowed to happen. So, no, God did not get what He demanded nor was He happy when Man kept sinning. God's Will keeps going unmet by Man not now glorifying God through following Christ.
God wants all to follow God, without exception, but He continues to not get what He wants. There are many examples of this in 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.