Did Jesus Christ die for everyone, from Adam to the last person ever born, or did Christ die only for the elect? Calvinism, or at least most of it, teaches what is called “limited atonement” or “particular redemption.” In other words, the mission of Jesus Christ’s death was to secure an atonement for those who are the elect of the Father. As you may know, we are this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. I began with Olson’s book before Horton’s arrived so I am catching up.
Horton’s sketch of atonement is, well, not as satisfactory as I’d like but his sketch of particular redemption is clear and accurate for what this Calvinist view affirms.
What do you believe about the atonement? For all or for the elect only? Do you think an atonement that makes possible redemption is less than an atonement that actually saves? (Arminian vs. Calvinist.)
He sketches atonement theories: penal substitution, recapitulation, Christus Victor, satisfaction, moral exemplary theory, and governmental theory. Horton makes it abundantly clear that Calvinism isn’t just the substitutionary theory but includes all the others, but in this his words don’t go as far as his sketch for, by the time he’s done, the only one that really matters is penal substitution (he does give some attention to recapitulation, but it’s not easy to distinguish recapitulation and Christus Victor) and his view of PS is through and through forensic and legal, and therefore it comes down to justification theory. Fair enough; that’s one kind of Reformed theology.
Example: while Anselm grounded atonement in the need for God to be satisfied in his dignity, Reformation theology was grounded in God’s justice. (That’s a justification theory driving atonement theory.)
He observes that many today prefer subjective theories of the atonement — Abelard, Grotius (and I’m not sure this view is given enough attention here or, to be honest, anywhere; I know in my book, A Community called Atonement, I didn’t give it attention), J. Denny Weaver, and he seems to have avoided Girard, whose theory I would suggest is gaining ground.
He pleas for an integrated theory, but in this sketch he tips his hat to Christus Victor, gives some attention to recapitulation, but then says at the bottom of each is the legal/justification dimension of penal substitution.
On the extent of atonement, Horton says there are three options:
1. Universalism
2. His death made salvation possible for everyone
3. He actually redeemed all of the elect.
Horton gives a brief, but good, defense of particular redemption (#3).
1. This view maintains that Christ’s death actually saves; #2 says it made salvation possible. [I just don't buy this stuff; there is too much contingency of redemption on belief, and a good example is Acts 2:38: repent, believe and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Peter doesn't doubt Jesus' death is the ground of redemption but for it to be effective one must believe, etc. To say this is saying it is only "possible" compares two unequals, as I illustrated with electricity and turning on the switch. God's work in Christ is the whole thing; but it becomes effective for an individual only upon the conditions established by God himself in Scripture.]
2. This view emphasizes the Trinity, and I’m glad he brings this out: not all Calvinists sound this Trinitarian, and not all evangelicals sound this Trinitarian, but Horton shows that atonement is Trinitarian.
3. This view places the focus on Christ rather than on the believer. OK, I can hear him but frankly my reading of this chp is that there’s much more emphasis on divine justice and justification theory, and not enough (for me at least) on Jesus Christ. [And, of course, more on union with Christ.]
I’m pushing back only in moderate and expected ways.
But everything in this chp is dependent upon one category that shapes the whole discussion: Horton defines sin almost entirely as a legal condition: we offend the holy God, we offend the lawgiver, we offend God’s justice, and this puts us in a position of legal guilt. The issue here, and I have seen this often in discussions of atonement, is to ask how the Bible defines sin: is it so one-sidedly a law and forensic condition? I say No, what say you?
I also say no! Sin is not so one-sidedly a law and forensic condition. It is heavily a condition of being mired in futility rather than free to serve the living God, as Paul himself says in Acts 14:15.
My frustration with the legal focus of sin, is that it ignores (or at least minimizes) the problems with sin right now. Sin right now hurts not only the sinner but those around the sinner.
I don’t really want to sound like Rob Bell here, but there is a real point that if we are not being saved from something right now, then the salvation seems a bit weak. Our salvation is both right now and future. That is the main weakness of not emphasizing the Union model of atonement.
I appreciate that Horton says that these are models and not exact descriptions of what is going on in the atonement. But I don’t understand how you emphasize that these are models and then end up saying ‘but this model is the one that is really important and all the rest are not really that important’. And that is where I feel Horton ends up.
I see sin defined as that which breaks relationship with God and others. When you look at the 10 commandments relationally they have new meaning. Gods heart desire was to have relationship and sin/selfishness ultimately gets in the way of that. It is much more relational than simply a legal condition.
I suppose I would answer your question with a “No”; but, first, I need an understanding of what we mean by the word LAW. If we understand LAW as what is required by God for my salvation, we must then answer the question “But who is my neighbor?” (And a thousand and one additional questions related to technicalities.) If, instead, we understand LAW to be what God desires of me (or community) so that I can be in a growing relationship with God, then I must answer the question, “What am I doing (or not doing) that is limiting that relationship.
For me, since I choose the latter definition, it’s not an either/or condition, but a both/and condition.
I say No, as well. Sin is portrayed in scripture as guilt, but also as disease and disorder, alienation and separation, and captivity (bondage). Honestly, I have to take on faith that I was legally guilty before God because I didn’t feel that I was condemned before the bar, so to speak. But I have experienced and can identify with those other aspects of sin far more easily.
I certainly consider myself more “Calvinistic” that not with respect to God’s sovereignty in salvation. It is hard to study the Scriptures and come away with a view of God that makes him a responder to us rather than an initiator. As for the specific theories of the extent of the atonement however I make no dogmatic claim. IMO this issue rests within the realm of mystery. For now, I am content to leave it as such.
Chuck,
“It is hard to study the Scriptures and come away with a view of God that makes him a responder to us rather than an initiator.”
That statement doesn’t necessarily make you a Calvinist. Classical Arminians believe God is the initiator. They believe in Prevenient Grace. The just don’t believe God’s grace overpowers the will (irresistible grace). God has created space for genuine love which give us freedom to resist His offer.
One of the things I believe I am seeing as a result of these conversations is a propensity for the Calvinist view to instantiate relational conditions with substance on the part *us*. It seems that, in this case, sin is not so much a description of our failures to be in perfect accord with god and instead to be some sort of instantiated state with almost a physical type of condition. As if there is a sensory state called sin.
This also seems to apply to justification. Like Calvinism seems to believe that being justified is somehow an instantiated state of *us* rather than relational construct. We are justified in our relationship with god, not that we are now justified because of god.
So then the forensic state is the declaration that the state is indeed in existence rather than a description of the relationship between god and people. The nature of our relationship is that we are not achieving what god would achieve in our position.
Its kind of like labeling someone who scores low or high on an intelligence test as stupid or smart. They in and of themselves are neither stupid nor smart, but the description is a term that describes their relationship on one dimension to other humans.
Therefore, in the atonement, my construct would indicate that the Calvinistic view would attempt to instantiate us with some state rather than describe the state of our relationship. My view of the atonement from a relational perspective is that god identified who our rightful leader should be so we can participate with him by following Jesus. It is not something that happened to us, it is something that happened to Jesus that allows us to know how to get to god. So the Calvinist instantiation of that instead is that *we* became acceptable in god’s sight as some sort of state. And they even go so far as to call the people who exist in that state the elect.
Just my thinking.
I find it telling that when God instructs Hosea to mirror God’s relationship to Israel Hosea isn’t told to become a judge, but asked to enter into a broken familial relationship in need of reconciliation. Likewise, Jesus describes what he is about in terms of a broken familial relationship in Luke 15. I see sin as more relational than legal. Not to utterly exclude legal components, but they do not seem to be primary or dominant.
I see an excluded option in his list of 3 options. And that is that Christ’s death ACTUALLY redeemed everyone. I just can’t stop Romans 5:12-20 from repeated in my head, where Paul restates his point no less than 5 times.
15: “if the many died…how much more the gift…overflow to the many”
16: “judgement followed one sin…gift brought justification…”
17: “trespass of one man, death reigned…how much more…reign in life…one man”
18: “one trespass resulted in condemnation FOR ALL…one righteous act resulted in justification FOR ALL”
19: “disobedience of the one; the many made sinners…obedience of the one man; the many will be made righteous.”
The crux of it all is of course verse 17, “…for those who receive.” And reception (or lack of reception) on the human side of things BY NO MEANS changes the effectiveness of Jesus’s gift/life/righteousness/justification to the many.
Here’s a test of an analogy (feel free to tear it apart if it doesn’t work): I have two holes in my heart. Say I am given a heart transplant of the world’s most successful sprinter. The existence of that heart doesn’t mean I automatically begin to “run the race with excellence.” In many ways, I must respond (receive?) the heart that is in me. Alternatively, I can continue to lie in bed and do nothing. That doesn’t change the quality of the heart within me.
Perhaps that analogy too much espouses a kind of universal justification. But is it any different that the “electricity in the house” analogy? Thoughts?
From my perspective Both Calvinism and Arminianism LIMIT the Atonement! Calvinism limits the Scope of the Atonement affirming that Jesus did not die for all. Arminianism limits the Atonement in Effect and Substance affirming that the Atonement does not actually save anyone but only makes salvation available to some.
In Calvinism Jesus, the life-guard, only chooses to save some people. But those He chooses to save He drags them to shore whether they want it or not. Having been saved they are thankful He did so.
In Arminianism Jesus, the life-guard, throws some people a life-ring and pulls in those who choose to grab the ring. Those who for whatever reason do not choose to grab the ring, perish.
In Universalism Jesus, the life-guard, throws life-rings, gets a boat, drags people to shore, and saves all people and all people ultimately thank Him for saving them, though at the time of them being saved some even fought the Lord, out of their minds with fear.
In Universalism all perspectives of the Atonement (penal substitution, recapitulation, Christus Victor, satisfaction, moral exemplary theory, and governmental theory) are ultimately valid and effective for all people. Universalism is the only belief that does not limit the Atonement.
Anthony Parrott#10, using the language I was working out on this post and the other one on justification, I think:
Justification = god won’t turn us away if we decide to follow him
Righteous = we have decided to follow him.
Sin = trespass = the things that we do that are not up to god’s standard
Judgement = Condemnation = estrangement from god
Receiving = us deciding to take him up on his offer, also = Saved
So in Scot’s electricity example, god put the electricity in the house, he set up and make clear the relationship that we can have, stringing my language together:
1. He won’t turn us away = we are allowed to flip the switch = we are justified = we have the heart
2. once we have decided to follow him = we will have the light on = we will be righteous, participating in him = we will exercise the rest of the body with the new heart
3. We will not be estranged from god = we have light in the room = we will not be subject to judgement and condemnation = we can use the new heart
4. He won’t hold our shortcomings against us = we are allowed to light the room = we are forgiven our sins = the heart is available to use
5. We just need to take him up on his offer = we can flip the switch = we will be saved and need to receive = we need to *just do it*
Anthony #10: I’ll leave it to the more learned here to critique your analogy theologically, but I like it because it reminds me of the medical/technical difference between the terms “efficacy” and “effectiveness” (which most people interchange as if they were synonyms). Efficacy is a treatment’s theoretical value if used in the proper way, under ideal conditions, and with perfect compliance to the treatment protocol. Effectiveness is a treatment’s actual value when used in the real world: sometime improperly, under less than ideal conditions, and with irregular compliance. Applying this to your analogy: God’s salvation through Jesus is efficacious, but not necessarily effective.
There is, of course, an additional difficulty here: what condition is being treated? Under the soterian model, it is the eternal consequences of sin. Under Scot’s King Jesus Gospel model, the condition is much broader and of more immediate consequence. I’m not yet sure if the analogies and other discussions here fully account for this difference.
Joe Canner #13 – Anthony can correct me if I’m understanding him wrong; but perhaps in his model the condition being treated is a slavery to sin that leads to death. Is this the kind of “condition” you’re looking for?
An appropriate analogy then would be to compare the world to Israel coming out of Egypt. All had been set free from their slavery; but not all entered into the land promised to Abraham. For many their salvation didn’t profit them anything.
I imagine 1 Cor. 10:1-5 and 1 Tim. 4:10 would be given in support to this view.
I think that, with Scot, atonement distilled to a purely forensic metaphor is to neglect the scope of the sin problem and, therefore, the magnitude of what GOD has done in JESUS for people and the world. Again, agreeing with Scot in ‘A Community Called Atonement’: “I think being ‘in Christ’ involves… everything we are is shuffled to Christ, and all that Christ can offer is shuffled to us. It is that big.”
I think we, Christians as a whole, have under-stressed the importance and relevance of a highly relational doctrine of union with Christ, which must be the back of any coherent atonement theory. This union with Christ is past, present, and future.
In terms of the believer’s faith as “flipping the switch,” it simply cannot be. Were our salvation set upon our believing, trusting, hoping – “faith” – it would be grounds to boast (“I believed; they didn’t”).
Instead, back to union with Christ, whoever was assumed ‘in Christ’ through the incarnation and as he bore them in himself upon the cross was crucified and buried and resurrected with him. Truly. Salvation has been accomplished far before our believing. Our faith is merely the conduit through which our consciousness comes in contact with the reality of our already-accomplished salvation. As Torrance wrote, “Our faith is the knowledge, given to us in the Spirit, that he has accomplished our salvation in his person and work and that we are saved purely by his unconditional grace.” Calvin agrees: “Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Institutes, 1.551 [3.2.7]).
Faith is indicative of our salvation; it does not actualize our salvation, unless you mean, of course, that it makes that salvation bear upon your consciousness and experience as reality.
Whoever was in Jesus when he came – to live out our righteousness, die our death, and rise again for our new life – was saved then, is being saved now, and will be finally saved in the eschaton. It is complete, the reality of which is bearing upon our lives presently (in the forms of faith, formation, and works), and will be completed in the end.
Alternately, those not ‘in Christ’ then have not been carried through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I maintain that Jesus did not carry all people in himself, thereby accomplishing their righteousness, death, and resurrection. And this bothers me, to be honest, because I cannot see why he would not. But I cannot reconcile passages on hell with universalism.
So that’s that, for what it’s worth. I’d love to hear any responses/thoughts.
PaulE #14: Yes, slavery to sin seems like a good way to capture it, and the analogy to the Exodus seems pretty apt as well.
Sherman @11-
This is one area where I can’t go as far as you. In your analogy with the life-guard, where does Free Will come into play? I need Free Will for both relational and theodocy issues. Does it fit into your framework?
Also, I should add, I don’t believe in TOTAL Freewill, but rather limited. In other words, clearly we can’t chose our parent’s, the society we’re raised in, etc. but I also don’t think we’re robots.
Maybe the freewill comes in in our choosing to wade out into the turbulent waters???
I don’t like to proof-text, but 1 John 2:2 seems directly applicable here: “and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.” Considering how the author of 1 John uses “world” in the letter, it is pretty hard to see any way around understanding this as an assertion that the atonement is universal.
I’ve never even able to understand the idea of limited atonement. Why would an omnipotent, sovereign God who is extravagant and generous in all he does be stingy when it comes to salvation? Why would he want to save only a few (and from a Tulip perspective apparently that is what he wants) and chose not to save the many? Why would he make hell so large and heaven so small? If he totally controls our every decision and move from birth (as we learned yesterday) why would he punish us for something he caused us to do in the first place? Why would he play word games with us and mean “some” when he says “all?” If he is, in fact, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, then why is he not willing? Or is he willing, but not able? But that kind of messes up sovereignty and omnipotence. The picture that emerges from this kind of a system of belief paints God as arbitrary and capricious — more like Islam’s Allah than a Father who is Trinity and waits for and welcomes prodigals. Just wondering…
I don’t think the emphasis on sin in scripture should be understand as primarily a legal, law-breach issue as much as a rift in relationship resulting in the death of any lacking self-vitality, namely us, the legal metaphors point to truth and does the slavery, bondage, decay, hostage/ ransom metaphors do. I think the over-weening focus of the legal side to the point it eclipses the others paint God as a legalist and leave the balance that I see in scripture. And I understand the scripture to teach an atonement universal in scope embracing all of humanity.
The fact that none of the three approaches is really satisfactory, and that one is sort of left choosing the lesser of the three ‘evils’ to me informs us that our understanding of atonement is significantly lacking.
TJJ @ 21,
My thoughts exactly, I don’t think Horton’s 3 options express alternatives that are derived from scripture as much as from philosophy. I couldn’t honestly sign off on any one of them since what I understand scripture to teach isn’t among them. I also didn’t like his using the terms salvation in #2 and redeemed in #3 like they are exactly the same since the Bible doesn’t seem to equate the two imho. I think he has a false dilemma because of some unstated assumptions.
I like Sherman’s point about how everyone limits the atonement, but in different ways. I don’t think the limiting is the problem, but rather the reason for the limiting that would be the crux of the problem. If the limiting is on God’s part, than it raises huge questions about God’s character, which I won’t belabor again here.
As to a legal emphasis on atonement, I just don’t understand the theology of it. I think what happened is that we have taken one metaphor of salvation, which is the juridicial, and stretched it until it has broken. The legal language is metaphorical, and this is important because if we forget that it is metaphorical than we may be tempted to draw out implications that are simply not there, and usually quite absurd.
For example, the central image of the juridicial atonement is vicarious punishment. That is, Jesus accepts the penalty of sin so that we don’t have experience it. This is a scriptural metaphor, and a helpful one. But it needs to remain a metaphor. As more than a metaphor, it runs into serious problems. Why does the fact that Jesus is punished make me any less guilty? We do not allow people to serve prison sentences for other people, in fact, we would say that this is actually unjust. We need other metaphors, which talk about our union with Christ to explain how atonement changes our being in relation to sin and guilt. But the union metaphor minimizes the moral aspect of sin. And so on and so on with all the metaphors.
While I agree with the other four points of Calvinism (i.e. I affirm a monergistic understanding of salvation), I firmly disagree on this particular point. The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus died for all, not for merely some. It’s true that only some are saved, but everyone’s sins are in some sense atoned for.
Do you think an atonement that makes possible redemption is less than an atonement that actually saves? No.
Limited atonement is a theological comstruct that fits neatly within a logical system. Limited atonement does not do justice to nor fit in the Story as revealed from cover to cover in the Bible.
BradK – #18:
Perhaps “the whole world” means to extend the scope of redemption out beyond the Jewish people to the world, the Gentiles. And maybe John, being the Jew that he is, writes “not only for our sins” as meaning ‘not only for us (Jews) but now also for every sort and kind of people.’ Maybe John isn’t speaking “literally” but is emphasizing that Israel’s identity was and is always for non-Israel, since she had instead harbored her special standing and abandoned her mission “to all nations” (Gen. 12:1-3).
Tom F. – #23:
I agree wholeheartedly. The metaphor must not assume more than it ought, nor should we, through it, reshape ‘the thing’ toward which it points and mistake it for ‘the thing’ itself.
Regarding vicarious punishment, you are right when you imply that we take it too far. No human judge would be deemed ‘just’ were he to punish a willing innocent on behalf of a guilty person. Justice is still not served; it is merely misplaced. A penalty is paid, but by the wrong party (a borrowed principle of debt/payment from financial metaphor that doesn’t transfer to juridicial metaphor). In other words, we got the wrong guy, and on purpose. This is why union with Christ is so vital to the metaphor: unless we are (and were) inextricably one with him, it is simply injustice. It is why Paul writes that we were crucified, buried, and risen “in him”.
Jon G @17
Sorry for the late response. I actually replied last Friday but when I submitted my response the connection to the site was broken. Anyhow, in my analogy with the life-guard, Free Will comes into play with those who have the opportunity and sense enough (not overwhelmed with fear) to be able to grasp the life-ring cast to them. Of course, some people consumed with fear will need pulling to shore in spite of their fighting the life guard. This reminds me of Jesus saying, “If I be lifted up, I will drag all to myself.”
In scripture we see examples of both those who choose to respond (Etheopian eunuch) and those who are, well, brought into the kingdom fighting every step of the way (Saul/Paul), examples of and text affirming both Free Will and Sovereign Election.
I believe God is sovereign and has given humanity limited, very limited autonomy, and in justice and mercy God holds us all accountable for the choices He’s put before us. And the reason I can embrace fully both the sovereignty of God and human autonomy is because I believe that judgment and punishment of sin is meant to and will accomplish reconciliation, the flames of truth, God’s fiery presence, delivering us from deception, evil, bondage to sin within and without whether that be in this life or the life to come.
Even John’s apocalyptic Revelation, if one interprets it Futuristically, does not end with the Lake of Fire, what I believe to be an analogy of the fiery judgment of God; rather, it ends with the New Jerusalem coming to earth, with the Bride and Spirit continually issuing an invitation for those outside New Jerusalem to come in, where the gates are never closed, with trees with leaves for the healing of the nations. And even pictures the nations and kings (those who throughout Revelation followed the anti-Christ) coming and paying homage to God in the New Jerusalem!
The reason that both Calvinism and Arminianism are forced to Limit the Atonement is because both believe in the certainty of damnation, ECT, for “others”. So though they have faith in the grace and love of God for themselves, they do not have such faith for everyone else.
JonG @17,
You wrote “I need Free Will for both relational and theodocy issues. Does it fit into your framework?”
Yes, free will, human autonomy, does fit into my framework. Considering we have very limited free will, any punishment for doing wrong would also then be very limited. Ultimately though my faith is in God and His will, more than in human will power. God creates us, shapes us, forms us, and we are created for His purposes and plans and ultimately will fulfill them. I truly believe that every knee shall bow in submission and every tongue shall joyfully proclaim allegiance to the King of Kings.