In Brief: Limited Atonement
Posted by Chris Roberts on April 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm.
Subscribe to Comments.

First a note about these In Brief posts. My tendency is to post long. The In Brief posts still aren’t exactly short but they are a way of trying to make myself post more often by keeping the posts fairly brief. I won’t go as far as Abraham Piper but brevity has its merits. On to the post.

Even after jumping into the Calvinist camp I’ve continued to struggle with the point on Limited Atonement. It has been hard for me to see a clear reason to adopt the point. Reading James White’s article Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? has helped clarify the issue.

I tend to dislike brief statements that push opposing views to their extremes but for the brevity I mentioned above I’ll do it here. Because of their views about limited atonement the Calvinist is assured that somebody was saved by the death of Christ while the non-Calvinist cannot be sure that anybody was saved.



Posted in: In Brief.
Trackback: http://www.seektheholy.com/2009/04/10/in-brief-limited-atonement/trackback/.
Short link: http://tcnr.me/d-erl
  • http://themasterstable.wordpress.com Clark

    There is nothing “limited” about the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Maybe the theology is good, but the wording is bad.

    I’m a “non-Calvinist,” and I’m sure that I am saved. The scriptures say that “Narrow is the gate and straight is the way, and few there be that find it.” Somebody was saved, and Calvinist/ non-Calvinist is not the way to know that.

  • http://barrywallace.wordpress.com Barry Wallace

    Hi, Chris. I came over here from SBC Voices and have enjoyed browsing around and reading some of your posts.

    Even though I’ve been a Calvinist for many years, I’ve struggled some with the idea of limited atonement, too. Not because it’s difficult, though. I’m quite prepared to embrace it gladly, if I’m convinced of it by the Word of God. I tend to lean toward Dr. Bruce Ware’s view of what he calls un/limited atonement, though, because I think it tries to take all of the biblical data into account without harming any part of it.

    I posted some of my thoughts on the subject back on January 12, and some pretty spirited discussion ensued. I would include the link but that might trigger your spam filter. You can find it easily enough, though, if you’re interested. The post is entitled “Bruce Ware on the Atonement.”

    Blessings, brother.

  • Pingback: A Rose by Any Other Name

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    I’ll abandon brevity in the comments. :)

    Clark:

    There is nothing limited about the power of Jesus’ blood. I like the phrase that explains it in this way: the blood of Christ is sufficient for the sins of everyone while efficient for the elect. That is, Jesus’ death could sufficiently atone for the sins of every single person. But in actuality it only atones for the sins of those who are chosen for salvation.

    Here is the way it is worked out by White in the article I mentioned above: Scripture teaches that on the cross Jesus died in the place of sinners. He satisfied the wrath of God by substituting himself for us. He paid the price God’s justice demands. Since the price is paid those covered do not have to face justice. The penalty is satisfied. Thus those “included” in Christ’s death will be saved. If any of them went to Hell then the price would be paid twice, justice would be served twice for one individual, and that itself would be unjust. If Jesus was the substitute then everyone he substituted for will in fact be saved. If his atonement was unlimited in its effectiveness then everyone will be saved and we would have to be universalists. The third option, the one the non-Calvinist non-Universalist would have to adopt, is that the atonement includes every person but it guarantees salvation for no one. Jesus did not actually completely substitute himself. Something was missing in the death of Christ, something is left to be done for people to be saved. This is why I say the non-Calvinist cannot be sure anyone was saved. Experientially you may know you have been saved. Theologically, however, the non-Calvinist is left with a system where Christ could have died on the cross and yet no one ever receive salvation. In the non-Calvinist framework there is a big question mark with the cross: Jesus died, but will you now finish the work so that you will be saved?

    This is exactly what many people today want to do. Non-substitutionary models of the atonement move along this line. Jesus didn’t actually die for sins, he died to show how greatly God sympathizes and empathizes with humanity. Anything resembling salvation is actually left for us to do by seeking justice and equality on earth. But that’s really a different subject. I’m assuming you’re in the substitutionary atonement camp. At this point it has become hard for me to see how substitutionary atonement can lead to anything but a Calvinist understanding of salvation.

    I believe that from start to finish Scripture shows the sovereignty of God in salvation, sovereign even over who will be saved. Scripture also shows God to be a substituting God, substituting himself in place of his people to bring them salvation. What Jesus did at the cross was a complete work of salvation, establishing as a certainty the salvation of those chosen by God. Any other understanding of the cross goes contrary to Scripture and leaves the unusual scenario of a cross that might not have saved anyone.

  • http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214 David

    If I may, I think my short essay here presents an effective criticism of the idea that there is a necessary correlation between all those for whom Christ dies, and those for whom Christ prays for, as high priest: which is think is part of the essential core of the arguments contained in the essay you cite.

    If I may:
    The Atonement and Intercession of Christ: An Argument for Limited Atonement

    Thanks,
    David

  • Theodore A. Jones

    According to Jesus there are only a few that ever find the small narrow door into the kingdom of God. That this statement is true is evidenced by your debate of many explanations of what Jesus has accomplished by being crucified. But there are a few who do find the true reason Jesus has been crucified but the true reason does not resonate with any majoritarian contemporary religious thought or articulation. For the true reason for Jesus’ crucifixion is a one hundred eighty degree counter against contemporary theories. You cannot sort and sift the truth out of falsehood. For even one little pinch of leaven leavens the WHOLE lump. All contemporary theories have the basic assumptive error “In place of” and a further erroneous assumption that a man’s life lost by bloodshed is a direct corporate or individual benefit. Neither assumptive is true. This introduction may raise your hackles and you may protest one man cannot be right but relative to why Jesus has been crucified every majoritarian accepted consensus of why is indeed countered by the truth of only a few.

    God made this statement as a covenant between himself and all mankind who are descendants from Noah. “And for your life blood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from EACH man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of your fellow man.” Gen. 9:5 NIV a, b, c. The crucifixion of Jesus is the base fact that has perfected c. So then understand. No matter which male human’s life is lost by bloodshed it is impossible for an individual or corporate group to have obtained a direct benefit. Always as a constant fact the life of any human male lost by bloodshed is accountable directly to God. There are no exceptions to this rule. Taking the life of Jesus by bloodshed, his crucifixion being the sin of murder caused by bloodshed, is fully accountable. But only the sin relative to Jesus’ crucifixion is directly accountable to God and each man must comply to this mandate or not save his life. This is also a constant fact by a rule of law from God. Usually after I state these facts the question forms in someone’s mind “Why should I have to account for Jesus’ crucifixion when I wasn’t even there when he was crucified.” Be aware EACH man too is not non-inclusive. There are no exceptions. The why there are no exception follows.

    Prior to Jesus’ crucifixion he stated this predictive descriptive relative to the state of the world’s population AFTER his crucifixion. “When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin.” Jn 16:8 NIV. Since it is obvious, too me at least, that the condition of people was not changed by Jesus’ crucifixion, everyone remaining guilty of some sin, isn’t it the imperative to understand what sin he is talking about? For if it is true that the crucifixion of Jesus’ is in place of anyone he has made an error in judgment. Since that is impossible and regarding that no student is greater in knowledge than his teacher and no man is greater than his master, in place of, is a direct contradiction of the truth.

    It is absolute that each man must give an account directly to God regarding one man’s life having been lost by bloodshed. The Way it has been made absolute is by a change to the law by the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion. Approach to God for judgment is mandatory for each man but approach is only allowable for each man by this change. Heb.7:12.
    The sin at issue AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion is whether you obey his last command explicitly or remain under the condemnation of eternal death. Not obeying his command willfully is a willful disobedience of a law for which there is no forgiveness. Regarding that there is no longer any sacrifice for sin there is no other possible resolution for all men have been reconciled to God for eternal punishment by Jesus’ crucifixion. The only Way you have a possibility of an escape from the wrath of God is by the Way of confessing directly to God the you are sorry Jesus was crucified and be baptized in water for the forgiveness of all sins. There is no other way of escape and there are no exceptions.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Theodore,

    I am not aware of any explicit command in Scripture that people must apologize for the death of Christ. Quite the contrary, believers rejoice that Jesus died because we know he died on our behalf.

    This is not a modern, contemporary notion. Christians have taught this throughout the history of the church, though it was not always the dominant teaching. Whether or not it is a majority position has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.

    Scripture itself is overwhelming in the evidence for this. You say what one man does cannot benefit others. Scripture contradicts you. One of the clearest places is Romans 5:12-21. Romans 5:19 can summarize it well: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

    The disobedient man is Adam. His fall into sin plunged everyone into sin and made everyone guilty of sin. The obedient man is Jesus. By his obedience those who follow him will be made righteous.

    1 Cor 15:3 says that Christ “died for our sins”. Not specifically because we sinned against him, but specifically because he intended to do something with and about our sin.

    Isaiah 53:5 says, “But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”

    With his stripes we are healed. Our sins were laid upon him. He paid for our sins. He died in my place, on my behalf, so that I might have life.

    I could go on and on. Scripture is clear and unified that Jesus substituted himself for us, taking the punishment we deserve, and giving us his righteousness so that we can stand holy before God. There needs to be confession and repentance but we do not apologize that someone killed Jesus. We confess, apologize for, and repent of our own sins that made it necessary for Jesus to die if we would be saved.

    A few other items in your comment are worth response but I’ll leave it at that.