Okay, so far we have "T" where mankind as a whole are sinners from birth, dead in sin, hostile to God, without hope. So how would anyone get saved? First, we have "U" where God chooses whom He will save ... which is good since none of us merit His choice. He chooses for His own purposes and has already, before time began, recorded everyone who will be saved. What else is needed? Well, we need some method of being saved. We need what Scripture calls "atonement" -- an "at-one-ment" whereby our sins are forgiven and set aside and we can have peace with God. That's our "L" -- Limited Atonement.
This one is one of the most hotly contested points. "Limited Atonement??? Christ died for all sin!" So, as before, I need to explain that "Limited Atonement" is not about limitations to the Atonement Christ made for our sin; it's about the intent. Here's the question. When Christ died on the cross, when He died for sins, when He said, "It is finished" (John 19:30), to what was He referring? What was His aim? Did He die to forgive all sin for all mankind for all time? Or ... not? Scripture is abundantly clear that not all will be saved. John wrote, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name (John 1:12). Clearly there's the "other shoe" there: "Those who do not receive Him do not receive the right." Jesus warned of Hell more than anyone else. He told of those, in the end, who would call Him "Lord, Lord" and He would reject them (Matt 7:21-23). So, quite clearly, not all sin was forgiven at the cross. "Well," I've often heard it said, "you have to accept the forgiveness." The illustration is used of the prisoner on death row who is pardoned by the governor. The warden goes to him and shows him the pardon, but the prisoner refuses to accept it. So, the warden carries out the execution. Surely you can see the massive injustice perpetrated on a pardoned prisoner who is, essentially, executed without fault simply because he wouldn't accept the pardon. That's a variety of things, but "justice" is not on that list. If all sin was paid for at the cross, all humans are forgiven and God is obligated by His own justice to welcome them all into heaven.
What does Scripture say? Jesus said, "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). "Many," not "all." (Also Matt 26:28; Heb 9:28.) Paul said that Jesus purchased "the church of God" with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus specifically did not pray for the world, but for His own (John 17:9). The author of Hebrews says "those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Heb 9:15). That's the elect, not everyone. In Revelation 5:9 they sang a song of praise to God who redeemed us "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Clearly Christ didn't intend to pay for the sins of all mankind and, thus, save all mankind. He did, however, pay for all the sins of His people (Matt 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; Titus 2:14). Christ made atonement for sin, but His intent was to pay for the sin of those whom He intended to save.
"Limited Atonement," then, misrepresents the idea. A better term would be "Particular Atonement." It's not about the extent of the Atonement, but the intent. Did Jesus intend to pay for all sin for all mankind and fail, or did He intend to pay for the sin of the elect and succeed? Scripture is clear that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world. "Particular Atonement" simply says that He never intended to do so, so His sacrifice is not efficient for covering all sin. That was never His aim. It does not apply to all sin. But, thank God, it applies to all the sin of all who believe, without limitation and without our contribution. Jesus paid it all for those He has chosen.
________
As usual, I'm providing more reading for your examination: John 10:15; Eph 5:25; John 3:16; 1 John 2:18-19; Isa 53:11; Mark 14:24; John 15:13; Rom 3:25; etc.
Please note: the most common error I see when people are contending over this topic is to bring up Scriptures that appear to show the opposite. That's all well and good, except trying to prove your point by making Scripture contradictory simply makes Scripture unreliable. Agree or disagree, but make sure you are harmonizing Scripture and not pitting Scripture against Scripture. If you believe that Jesus paid for sin for all mankind for all time, what do you do with the texts that say otherwise? If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. Let God be true though every man a liar.
6 comments:
The example I've heard against this doctrine is that all sin has been paid for and you simply have to accept the payment. That example has always bothered me (for the same reason as the pardon example you gave) because it makes God unjust. The sin has been paid for, so making someone pay for what has been paid for is something we would rightly sue over even in our world. However, we do not know who is elect, so we must act as thought everyone has the potential to have their sins paid for. I think that might be the gut reaction people have against Limited Atonement. If not everyone's sins are covered, why bother evangelizing? Hyper-Calvinists took this route. But that assumes we know who are the elect. We must evangelize as Arminians, but worship as Calvinists.
Once again, I concur that a bit of tweaking to “TULIP” is helpful; your “Particular Atonement” is much better than “Limited Atonement” (Sproul uses “Christ’s Purposeful Atonement” or “Definite Atonement”).
As this doctrine builds on the first two, I see this obvious line of reasoning so far: Man is naturally disinclined towards the things of God and will not choose Christ on his own; therefore, for any to be saved, God must intervene and has indeed made a sovereign decision to grant saving faith to some (based on nothing we have done or will do). If there is an election by God, there will consequently be those elected, or “the elect.” This implies a specific group, a subset of people among all of humanity who are “chosen in Christ” for new life. If Christ’s death and resurrection brought universal atonement (as some assert), there would not be this distinction among people in Scripture, but everyone would be portrayed as children of God; yet, two separate groups of people are clearly depicted in Scripture rather than a homogeneous group. Finally, there is no possibility that God the Father would allow His Son to suffer and die without fulfilling His full sovereign and efficacious will; therefore, the notion of a universal atonement is illogical and would be valid only if the first two doctrines of “TULIP” are denied.
Stan, you wrote this near the bottom of your post: If you believe that Christ paid only for the sins of the elect, what do you do with the texts that seem to say "all"? Don't gloss it over. I do believe that--as I presume you do, as per this post--but I feel unprepared to explain those “contradictions” in today’s comment section. Therefore, I apologize for evading your challenge but will certainly appreciate any other commenter’s efforts along those lines!
I didn't lay it down as a challenge. You (all of you readers) are safe. I simply meant that we ALL need to harmonize Scripture rather than eliminate the stuff that is hard to explain. (And, there ARE answers to the so-called "all" passages that make sense.)
I think the responses to the "all" passages are much more consistent, coherent, and complementary, over against those who are against the "few" passages that require pitting Scripture against Scripture.
Phew! :)
Perhaps you will share those answers with us one day.
Post a Comment