I can’t quite remember how I stumbled across this article last night, but I thought I would share it anyway.
The Nature of the Atonement: Why and for Whom Did Christ Die? By Phil Johnson
I’m not excited about the article because he agrees with my position on particular redemption, even though he does. I’m excited because he brings a wise perspective on the debate. Calvinism in the past and in the present allows room for varying positions on this debate. Not all Calvinists agree on each text. Most however would agree that Jesus died for the elect in a special sense for which he did not die for the non-elect.
This article is similar to some comments by Wayne Grudem that I highlighted in the context of a recent debate on the topic. In all our (speaking to fellow Calvinists here) defense of particular redemption, let us be careful not to deny that Christ’s atonement applies to all men in some sense. And let us not be quick to judge others on the basis of our strong stand on the issue, all the while we remain ignorant of many wiser Calvinists of old who would caution us against such a tactic.
Bob,
Um, I think I sent you that link by Phil Johnson over at SharperIron.org just a few days ago. Perhaps that might jog your memory! I’m curious to know what you meant by this statement above, “I’m not excited about the article because he agrees with my position on particular redemption, even though he does.” It seems that this is a ‘dangling’ statement; you might want to revise it.
At any rate, I’ll look at Wayne Grudem’s article you linked to, as well as your comments on the subject of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption. I’m writing a seminary thesis paper on the defense of Limited Atonement.
In addition to my comments above, my paper will be written to defend the Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption doctrine. I want to include a heavy emphasis on sources from dispensationalist authors who are Calvinists (like John MacArthur, Barry Horner, and Phil Johnson, to name a few) since the majority of Calvinists are also Covenantalists. Not that Covenantalists don’t have their soteriology right (and, they do), but sometimes Covenant Theology can be a hindrance to those who think that CT equals Calvinism, and thus would not bother to give weight to the arguments from Calvinists on Limited Atonement. I’m reading a book on the Four Views on Eternal Security, and I hate to say that Norm Geisler is making a better case Biblically (he is a modified Calvinist, not a TULIP Calvinist) than Michael Horton, who is a Covenantalist. The other two Arminian scholars took issue, including Geisler, over Horton’s Covenantalist position being presented first before discussing his defense of Perserverance of the Saints. Horton’s covenantalism was very distracting and hard to follow since the other three scholars were all dispensationalists, and somewhat dismissed Horton’s scant defense of Perserverance. I think that it’s similar to arguments for the defense of Limited Atonement because many who aren’t TULIP Calvinists dismiss the Doctrines of Grace because of the covenantalist hermeneutic. That’s why Phil Johnson’s article was so clear and concise, and not distracted by a larger theme (covenantalism) that seems to control a lot of CT thought on soteriological doctrines.
Larry,
That’s where I found the link. Thanks for reminding me.
My statement is worded strangely, but it is grammatically correct (I think). I am not excited about the article (merely) because he agrees with me. I have seen other articles that do too. The value of the article lies in his perspective on the history and issues surrounding the whole debate, in my opinion.
Regarding your second post, I agree with you. I read that same book, and Horton’s comments seemed aloof from the discussion. He made some great points, but the way he attacked the problem seemed forced and strange. His is not the best defense of covenantal theology in the world either!
However, Geisler’s comments were sorely lacking, in my opinion. And the Wesleyan Arminian guy made some good points. See his quotes from Charles Stanley, for instance.
I don’t think Geisler’s comments do justice to the many passages which provide “if” statements. In many ways the Wesleyan Arminian guy is right, except based on 1 Jn. 2:19 and other places, I would tend to interpret those who don’t continue as never truly saved in the first place.
That whole discussion is fascinating and important. (Not sure if it actually focuses in on limited atonement, but it does deal with the topic of sanctification). You might be interested in reading the articles linked to at the bottom of my battle of Jericho post. They related directly to the discussion.
Thanks for your thoughts Larry. As always they help create a meaninful discussion.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Bob,
I haven’t yet read the Four Views on Eternal Security in its entirety (I’ve read through Geisler’s essay on his modified Calvinist position and am about to start reading Horton’s response to Geisler). It did seem to me that Geisler’s position was better presented than Horton’s, but I haven’t yet read the critiques of Geisler’s position. It appeared to me that I agreed in a large part of Geisler’s position, but with some exceptions, which are the exceptions that TULIP Calvinists like us would disagree with.
Other books that are required reading are Bruce Demarest, Millard Erickson, and the Five Views on Sanctification, which I have to read in one month’s time in order to finish the class. A good sign that CBTS isn’t as ‘stringent’ on its ‘modified Calvinist stance’ (they describe themselves as being ‘Biblicist’ versus either Calvinism or Arminianism), otherwise I wouldn’t have received the variance to write a paper on a defense of Limited Atonement.
I’ve also been in e-mail correspondence with another TULIP Calvinist dispensationalist ‘scholar’, Dr. Bob Griffin (his church website is https://www.sovereigngracechurch.com), who has a B.A., B.S., M.A., M.S., M.Div., Ed.D., Th.D., and has been working on a Ph.D. He has more letters after his name than in his own name! At any rate, our correspondence has given me some more ammunition to present a defense of the Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption with sources from dispensationalist Calvinists. Hopefully this will allow my paper to be received by the professor at CBTS better than it would have been if I had used Covenantalist sources (although I will use some CT scholars’ essays/articles in the defense of Limited Atonement). In the scant time that I’ve used to scour the internet, I was able to find Phil Johnson’s article, which I think has been the best so far that I’ve read.
Larry,
Be sure to check for articles at the newly redesigned Monergism.com. Also, you could read John Piper’s and Spurgeon’s booklets on Calvinism in general (both linked at this blog) which contain a section covering the L.
Later,
Bob
I saw a couple of the articles at monergism.org, and they are somewhat helpful (although disdainful of dispensationalism, one article was written by Hendrix was done in a positive way to ‘assist’ Amyraldian dispensationalists to turn from their waywardness and embrace Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption. Although I already do accept this as being not only biblical but crucial to understanding the Doctrines of Grace [as does John MacArthur and Phil Johnson], I don’t arrive at my conclusions the same way that Covenantalists do with regard to their ‘grace/works/redemption’ matrix. We all agree that the doctrines are biblical regardless of the hermeneutic ‘model’ we employ as it seems that that we both use hermeneutics the same way in soteriology with exception to the covenants of Covenantalism, and still exposit from the Scriptures that Particular Redemption is true!).
As an aside, I’ve already viewed the DVD course that covers Limited Atonement. Although I believe that Dr. Burggraff represented the Particularists well, I don’t think that he is convinced that the Scriptures teach LA/PR. There were some inconsistencies in his presentation of his apparent belief in “General” Atonement (he doesn’t like the term ‘universal’…. one only wonders why!). I think that many of the Scripture passages that supposedly ‘support’ general atonement would apply to other doctrines, or apply to the ‘call’ of the Gospel rather than limiting the atonement. We do believe, as in the Synod of Dordt, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, but efficacious for the elect (those who ‘believe’). I wonder at why generalists don’t understand the distinction. That’s why Phil Johnson’s article was a gem, IMHO. Not only was Phil’s history great, but also his exegesis– particularly (no pun intended) on 1 John 2:2′s relationship to the other passage in the Gospel of John (I believe it’s in chapter five). Christ died *especially* for the elect, but His death was sufficient for all (but all aren’t elect, thus we have ‘many’, not all).
OK, I’ve gone on long enough here. I have some more study to do. Thanks for the links, though. If you scour some from dispensationalists in support of LE/PR, let me know!
James White is no dispensationalist, but his open letter to Dave Hunt has a great discussion on John 3:16 and also on 1 Jn. 2:2. It is really good (and doesn’t slam dispys).
Bob,
Thanks for the late reply on the open letter from James White to Dave Hunt. James White is very instrumental in his expose’ on KJV-onlyism. As an aside, I had no idea that James White was not a dispensationalist.
[...] The question intrigues me as it asks whether Christ’s death on the cross atoned for the sins of all the world, or just the elect. I have had debates on my blog concerning Calvinism’s infamous “limited atonement” point (see this post). And while I do defend Calvinism’s understanding that Christ gave his life for his sheep in a special sense that he did not do for all people equally, yet I have also come to understand that on this particular question there is room for disagreement (see this post & this post). [...]
Either Jesus died for everyone – or He did not. It is that simple! I once sat in a Calvinist church hearing a message which made me terrified and confused re. whether I was one of the individuals for whom ‘Jesus did not die.’ Some years later, through a series of circumstances, the Lord marvellously drew me to Himself. Through my own personal quiet times and the study of God’s Word, I see nothing which upholds the doctrine of Limited Atonement, which I believe is a “doctrine of devils.” (1Tim. 4v1) “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1John 2v2)………….Elizabeth.
Awesome post! You guys have a great blog!
Limited Atonement has absolutely no support in the Bible. The only way to get there is by philosophical musings and chopped up verses. I pray that you all will see the Jesus for how loving he really is!!
Brother Andrew -
Do you believe that Christ’s death saves everyone?
Or, to put it Spurgeon’s terms, do you believe that when Christ was suffering on the cross, he was trying to save wicked Queen Jezebel out of hell?
I’m not asking whether Christ’s death has enough merit to save all – of course it does – it is of infinite merit! I’m asking if it was Christ’s intention to try to save those that would not believe on Him for salvation.
Brother Andrew -
One more thing…
We Calvinists believe God is loving. Christ offered Himself a bloody sacrifice for my sins when I was His enemy. His love is beyond anything I can imagine!
We also believe that the Bible teaches that God is just and holy and that he will punish men for their sins. We must believe all the Scriptures teach about the nature of God, or our theology will be one sided and lead to errors.