Lately, I’ve been struggling to get back to blogging. With the birth of our fourth daughter, 24 days of having company at our house in October, & with pressing issues at work, coupled with studying Biblical Theology at my church Bible institute, & gearing up for teaching through 1 Peter in our new Church small group, I’ve been a little busy! We also just got back from a trip to WI for another cousin’s wedding.
Amidst all of that, the comments around here have been quite busy lately, too! And most of the action has centered on the Calvinism issue, in one respect or another. See this post for an explanation. Part of blogging involves following other blogs, and so I have recently been distracted by a debate on the atonement question at Contend Earnestly (which now has a permanent spot on my blogroll, by the way) and Theology Online.
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).
So as I find myself looking into the question more closely, I don’t know which side to take. The “6 Point Calvinists” (Seth McBee and others) hold to an unlimited expiation, but a limited application of Christ’s atonement. All the sins of all are paid for, but only those who will believe (the elect) will be forgiven. So on the one hand, John 3:16 is taken to refer to Christ dieing for all people, with the goal of saving the world, yet on the other hand John 10:15ff. is understood to refer to Christ’s singular aim to actually save the elect alone. Their view is called the “unlimited/limited” view of the atonement.
If you are a little confused, or if that seems a little odd, join the club. But we should know that there have been various church leaders throughout history who have affirmed this view in one form or another, notably John Calvin, John Davenant, J.C. Ryle, R.L. Dabney, and W.G.T. Shedd.
I want to encourage anyone with time, to follow the debate over at Contend Earnestly. There are some helpful comments over there, and they are posting both views in an honest attempt at a fair and even-handed debate. Here are links to the posts so far: introduction, John 3:16–limited view, John 3:16–unlimited/limited view.
Finally, I’m open to input from the peanut gallery. Please if you know of some good articles on this issue, or if you have a couple of cents worth of input on the topic, feel free to give it here in the comments of this post. Of course, I’d encourage you to join the fray over at Contend Earnestly.
May God help us to learn and appreciate one another more through this, not just to waste time bickering over obscure points of doctrine. May we not lose sight of the glorious truth that Christ died in our place, and may we not forget to worship, even as we study!
[...] was reading the post over there at Reformed Fundy blog and I thought this might help. Calvin, that inspired expositor from the 16th century, argued the [...]
You might consider scoping out the other files in this archive:
For Whom Did Christ Die?
David
Corrected URL for the main blog page
Calvin and Calvinism
In my thinking, as I read the scriptures and try not to do interpretational backflips – it becomes very clear to me, primarily because of two verses.
1 John 2:2 – He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.
1 Timothy 4:10 – we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
I believe you can still hold to the doctrine of the “elect” and embrace these verses. They speak of God’s heart of love and desire to see all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
My two cents…
Bob, I find Seth’s points worthy of consideration. I think his view on the atonement is similar to the one believed by Eric Svendsen. In the past, he had a dialogue with James White about this. White didn’t agree with Svendsen’s 4.5 Calvinism. Here are the articles: https://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/time-to-stop-making-l-litmus-test-for.html
How exactly does Seth’s view (and your view, I think) differ from Amyraldism? Thanks.
May God be glorified in the debate.
[...] the “Multiple Intentions View” of the Atonement In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth [...]
Hey all, thanks for commenting. See my new post for where I’m at in this whole debate.
Let me say that tags, occasionally, work. I am here because BuddyO @ Rev22.org tagged you. I really like what I see.
“All the sins of all are paid for, but only those who will believe (the elect) will be forgiven.”
I thought I had read nearly everything on this, but I hadn’t. This is an interesting thought, especially in light of the idea that, perhaps, (looking for help or reproof here) God’s creation is purified at the final judgment. Possibly, washing the sins of the prinicpalites and powers (which I have come to understand as the structures of this world, not the spirits of the air, also looking and open for help or reproof on this).
The quote at first reading sounds like 6 of one, half dozen of the other, but there it does deem as though there may be room for cautious, prayerful discussion on this.
Nice stuff here, brother!
Soli Deo Gloria!
2 Peter 2:1-3 should settle the argument on atonement…
After reading this scripture passage, please answer this question…
“Who are denying the Lord that bought them?”
…then read at the end of verse 3 what destiny awaits them…
One more question to ponder…
Are those who teach damnable heresies, such as a false doctrine about our Lord’s atonement, truly saved?
love,
Larry
I am concerned especially for those of you who say you believe in Jesus Christ but don’t believe His words, like, the words He spoke to Nicodemus, recorded in John 3:16-17:
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.”
Jesus Christ, in His own words, came to save the world because God so loved the world!
The world includes both the elect and the unbelievers. If you don’t believe that Jesus Christ came to save the entire world and that His atoning death on the cross was complete and sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of every one of His human creatures, then you are calling Jesus Christ a liar and you are not one of His followers!
Larry,
If Christ died to save the *entire* world (all of humanity) from sin, then why is there a Lake of Fire for the punishment of unregenerate sinners? If Christ died for all, then all are saved…. thus you have universal salvation. At this point you put Christ against the Father, since it is the Father who elects those whom He foreknew to salvation. Christ’s atonement was for the elect, and was effective in saving to the uttermost, not just to make salvation ‘possible’. We preach a Christ crucified who atoned and provided salvation for His people, the elect.
Dear Larry L.,
You have fallen into the same trap that many with your same conviction have fallen because you have chosen to completely disregard Christ’s teaching concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Christ indeed died for all, my friend, but not all are saved…
Why?
…because Christ declared in John 3:16-17 that He came to die for all the sins of all humanity so “that the world through Him might be saved”…
…but He also declared in Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:8-10 that He cannot forgive “the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”…
What is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?
Rejecting the conviction of the Holy Spirit…
These Matthew, Mark and Luke scriptures clearly teach that all are not saved because God cannot forgive those who reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit which points them to the only remedy for their sins, the prophesied Messiah, “one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” and His atoning death on the cross to pay the full penalty for their sins.
One day, Larry, you will stand before Jesus Christ. Will you really tell Him to His face that His death was not adequate enough to pay the full debt for all the sins of the entire human race?
If you still don’t believe that Christ, by His death, also “bought” those who are damned please read carefully 2 Peter 2:1-3. The word “bought” used by Peter is the same word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 7:23.
…and again I ask on this blog, “Are those who teach damnable heresies, such as a false doctrine about our Lord’s atonement, truly saved?”
Please consider your ways before it’s too late.
love,
Larry D.
Limited vs Unlimited Atonement
Limited Atonement Foundational Teaching:
1. Christ died ONLY for the sins of the elect or Church
2. Christ did NOT die for the sins of the WHOLE world
List of verses that specifically state any of the above teachings: None
Unlimited Atonement Foundational Teaching:
1. Christ died for the sins of the world
2. Christ is the Savior of the world (or All),(or All Men)
List of verses that specifically state any of the above teachings:
I John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.(Kosmos)
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world. (Kosmos)
1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, specially of those that believe.
John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world(Kosmos), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world(Kosmos) to condemn the world(kosmos); but that
the world(Kosmos) through him might be saved.
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that
this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. (kosmos)
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world(kosmos), but to
save the world. (Kosmos)
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.(Kosmos)
If God wanted us to know that Christ died ONLY for the elect and not for the Whole World:
- wouldn’t there be multiple passages telling us that it was ONLY for the elect or ONLY for the Church
- why would there be any verses saying He died for the whole world or for all men (leaving us to reinterpret)
- wouldn’t there be verses stating that clearly and avoid having verses that “seemingly” state something else
- would God put us in the position that the mere quoting of His Word would be heresy
ie. Quoting 1 John 2:2 (sins of the WHOLE world) would be considered false teaching
Also: Is there any other doctrine where:
- God has a teaching He wants us to know; ie. Christ died for only the elect
- but He never tells us that specifically in His Word
- rather He gives us multiple passages that, when read normally, teach something totally different
- then God expects us to take those verses and by adding or changing the normal understanding of those verses we would come
up with what He really wants us to know which is totally different from what He said
- do you know of any other doctrine that God reveals in such a way
Now on the other hand , what if God wanted us to know that Christ died for the whole world and all men:
- what verses would He use to tell us
- wouldn’t He use verses that speak of Christ being the Savior of the World
- wouldn’t He use verses that speak of Christ being the Savior of All Men
- wouldn’t He use verses that speak of Christ taking away the sin of the world
If God wanted us to know that His Son died for the whole world:
- WHAT POSSIBLE VERSES could He have used that He did not use in His Word already
Don’t Ignore Two of the Basic Rules for Interpreting Scripture
1. Use the literal, historical, grammatical sense – use the normal meaning of the word
2. Exegesis – draw the meaning out of the text – don’t use eisegesis – reading one’s own ideas into the text
John 3:18 & 8:24 say that people are condemned for not believing
- what don’t they believe for which they are condemned?
- if Christ did not die for them, how can they be condemned for not believing Christ died for them?
2 Cor 4:3-4 states that Satan has blinded unbelievers
- why would Satan hide the Gospel from the nonelect
- why would it make any difference if the Gospel shined on them
- why does Satan bother blinding them if the Gospel doesn’t include them anyway
The word kosmos appears in 58 verses of John. If you read all of these verses rather than the limited selection above you can easily see that kosmos does not mean an identical thing in every context. Apparently John has several ‘normal meanings’ of the word kosmos – the question is which one applies in which context.
Jim,
I plan on responding to this. I have company presently and can’t respond right now. There is an answer. I’m going to take down your duplicate comment on the other post however. We’ll keep the discussion here, or I may start a new post on this issue and give us a place to have some back and forth, if you’d like.
I can understand where you’re coming from on this. With company and a general lack of sleep on my part, I’ll have to ask you to wait till early next week for a reply.
Thanks,
Bob Hayton
Thanks Bob, I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
[...] and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his [...]
Jim this post starts my response to your concerns.
Why “Limited Atonement” (Part 1)