Limited Atonement
In an effort to continue on in a much interrupted attempt to describe the five points of Calvinism and share my views I offer the following on point number three.
Limited Atonement teaches that Christ’s death was only for the elect since only their salvation is secured by it. Therefore since its efficacy is limited its scope must necessarily be. It is argued that often “all” does not mean “all” in texts dealing with the provision of Christ’s death in the sense that He died for everyone. Rather it is said that He died for “all” of the elect. Some who hold to limited atonement prefer the nomenclature of “particular redemption” instead because of the stigma of the phrase “limited atonement.” So I will be referring to those holding to limited atonement as “particular redemptionists” through the rest of this entry. I personally do not hold to this point of Calvinism. I know several wonderful believers who do and have great respect for many of them. Yet I am convinced that this doctrine is flawed at its very core and that it finds insufferable exegetical problems. It is often held to largely on the merits of its logical force and coherence with the other four points rather than its actual exegetical, explanatory power. There is no question that there are texts that speak of Christ’s death for the elect or for the church or for the “many” (Rom. 5:15). Yet the presence of these texts do not in anyway mitigate against the presence of texts that broaden the scope of Christ’s death. The Bible has both types of passages in it and both need to be dealt with honestly, contextually and exegetically. There is a sort of noble theological eisegesis that often happens in biblical interpretation in the name of good theology. Such an approach makes the text a pawn in the polemic of the adherent to particular presuppositions. I readily understand that we cannot come to the text without presuppositions. However, it is a different thing to have the answer already in hand before we have heard the text speak from its context and so be driven to verify our presuppositions and precommitments rather than let them be informed or reformed by the text. I am not implying that only particular redemptionists are guilty of this. I have found and probably will find areas in my own theology where this has been or will be the case. Yet I do not see the issue of the atonement as one of those areas. In fact there is a certain logical tension many four point Calvinists feel because the weight of the biblical text seems to leave them without the tight coherence that most five point Calvinists cherish. However I personally find no weakness in the logical force of four point Calvinism.
Let’s look at this issue of the extent of the atonement under the guise of three considerations: history, theology and exegesis.
History
Was John Calvin a five point Calvinist? The answer is definitive: No. I am not convinced he was a four point Calvinist either, but it is indisputable to the reader of Calvin that he did not unilaterally subscribe to the particular redemptionist position. It would seem that he made statements in his writings that support both the limited and unlimited perspectives. As a result a follower of his from the early 17th century, Moise Amyraut struggled with the concept of “limited atonement.” He challenged the thought by postulating the presence in the biblical text of both a universal and a particular redemption. The universal aspect dealt with the scope of the atonement and the particular aspect dealt with the application or efficacy of the atonement.
The Birth of Particular Redemptionism. The particular redemptionist position found its historical codification at the Synod of Dort. In point 2 Article III of the Canons of Dort we read “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” So the concept of “sufficient for all” is rooted in the document. In Article VIII the Canons of Dort reference the effectiveness of the saving work of Jesus on the cross and the sovereign role of God in rendering effective the work of Christ in those He has chosen for salvation. This is of course true. Immediately following each of the articles under each major point is a section dealing with the Dort’s “rejection of errors”. Under the same major point dealing with Christ’s atoning work is the rejection of error VI. Here the document rejects those “who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death.” Here Dort seems to miss the direction of contemporary four point Calvinism. The distinction between the obtaining and applying of atonement is not used by four point Calvinists as a way of smuggling the benefits of Christ to all. Rather it is a way of genuinely articulating two facets of atonement that help explain the language of the text. So what Dort does not do adequately enough is deal with the viable distinction between obtaining and applying for those who do not wish “to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death.” No four point Calvinist I know is trying to be a universalist in particularist garb as Dort seems to imply. It may well have spoken to a theological error in its own day unique to its historical setting but that error cannot be said to be analogous to four point Calvinism as it is articulated today. So the slogan “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” is inadequate to accurately explain the distinction between those who hold to an unlimited atonement and those who hold to a limited view since both could subscribe to the slogan but remain less than satisfied at how the other deals with the text.
Theology
In five point Calvinism it is thought that the logical force of election coupled with a grace that is not ultimately resisted leads to the conclusion that Christ’s atonement must be limited because the aforementioned points necessarily constrain the scope the atonement. The thought is objection is often thrown out to four point Calvinists from their five point friends that if Jesus in some real sense died for everyone then some of his atoning work would be wasted. After all it would not be applied to non-elect people and thus be for naught. This however gives no credence to one of the historic motifs of the atonement. While we must understand Jesus as our substitute it is also true that Jesus secured victory over sin, death and the Devil. It is also true that he died as the ultimate example of love. While this “exemplar” view, which finds its roots in the medieval Abelard, is insufficient as the operating motif of the atonement it nonetheless is a true aspect of the atonement. Therefore from the unlimited atonement perspective Jesus death shows the breadth of the love of God. His love extends to all. He loves his enemies, just as Jesus called us to do in the Sermon on the Mount. He loves them even though they will reject Him and go into eternity blaspheming and cursing His name.
So there is no logical dissonance in four point Calvinism. It actually coheres with the nature of God in a more cogent way, in my opinion, than the five point position. Here we see God as one who loves all and elects some, obtains atonement for all but applies it only to those whom He effectually calls. The logical force argument ends up ironically being a logical farce.
Exegesis
What we have seen is that history and theology do not adequately solve anything regarding this issue. The real problem for the particular redemptionist is the text of Scripture itself. Almost all appeals to a five point Calvinistic system rest on the “logical force” argument mentioned above. However its textual basis is specious. At the outset I mentioned that the text speaks of Jesus dying for an elect group or for the many or for the church. Yet it also speaks of him dying for those outside of the many or the church. This is a problem for the particular redemptionist. If it can be shown that Jesus has in some way died for those outside of the elect then particular redemptionism collapses. Consider the texts below:
1 Jn. 2:2 – He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
The language seems as though it could not be clearer. Jesus died not only for those to whom John is writing but also for the whole world. I am not sure how he could state unlimited atonement in a more clear fashion. The typical rebuttal by the particular redemptionist is that John’s addressees were Jews and the “whole world” should be read as a way of saying “Jesus died not only for Jewish believers but also for believers from all different ethnicities (the whole world). This is strained eisegesis and does not at all make sense of the background setting for 1 John. My former professor and New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace writes well concerning the addressees of 1 John: “The audience was almost certainly made up mainly of Gentiles. Not only is this seen in the kind of heresy which is fought (antinomian, docetic-neither of which was found among Jewish Christian sects), but the epistle ends with the warning, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (5.21), an admonition which has great relevance for Gentile Christians, almost none for Jewish Christians.” In short this text simply teaches that Jesus death was for all. This does not mean that there is no place for the limited efficacy taught by other passages but those passages do not nullify or erase the force of this text wither. The two must be coalesced theologically but we cannot slight what the text clearly says.
1 Tim. 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
I have yet to read a sensible and adequate treatment of this from the particular redemptionist perspective that does not attempt such hermeneutical gymnastics that one could well strain or snap an exegetical tendon. This verse posits Jesus as the “Savior of all men” and then segments a group out of “all men” by the adverb “especially” (malista) and refers to that group as “those who believe.” So if He is the Savior of all and in a unique way regarding “those who believe” then there must be those left who do not believe of whom He is still said to be the Savior. “Those who believe” come out of “all” leaving “some” of whom Jesus is said to be Savior.
It makes the most sense to read the text in the plainest manner. The reason for the “hope” that the previous verse (vs. 9) speaks of is the uniqueness of Christ’s efficacious atonement for “those who believe.” Certainly the text is reassuring to the believer of Christ’s unique love and atoning work for the elect. However to ignore what the text says about the non-elect is simply to not deal adequately with the content of vs. 10. Attempts to explain “Savior” as somehow a reference to common grace or are I think cases of special pleading. In the same way attempts make the reference to Christ as the Savior of all men non soteriological and then to apply a soteriological sense to “those who believe” is so eisegetical that it does not even merit comment. In yet another vein, attempts to render malista as “that is” rather than “especially” goes against the major translations taking a very odd view. One can quickly see that attempts are made on behalf of a precommitment to a five point system to do away with the clear sense of the verse. But as we have already seen the logical force of four point Calvinism stands shoulder to shoulder with that of five point Calvinism so we are in a position to let exegesis win the day rather than enslavement to a system.
Other texts could be mentioned such as Jn. 1:29; 3:16; 4:42; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Tim. 2:3-6. Of particular interest along with the above texts is 2 Peter 2:1. I will not go into each of these as I have gone on long enough suffice it to say that while some are disputed the two mentioned at length and the 2 Pt. 2: 1 reference make a strong case for rejecting the particular redemptionist view.
So given the weight of textual evidence, the fact that a coherent and consistent theology of four point Calvinism can be argued and that Reformation and Post-reformation historical theology gives us no convincing consensus view we are obligated to go the way of the text and embrace unlimited atonement.
The Glories of the Gospel in Gran Torino
We live in a culture that often seems to have little appreciation for deep thought. Cultural media forms such as music, television, books and movies often are filled with trivial dribble that excises little mental effort in keeping pace with its shallow themes and frivolous content. Our world feels more like a carnival littered with distractions than a serious and contemplative enterprise at understanding reality. However, every once in a while something glistens among the rabble.
Last night I went to see Gran Torino directed by Clint Eastwood. It has been a while since I have been so moved by a film and so staggered by its message. In many ways I hope it is Eastwood’s swan song. The man whose forceful presence filled many a western with his maverick sense of above-the-law justice should ride off into the sunset leaving us with this gripping picture of the Redeemer who rights all injustices and turns our perversion into His praise. Certainly sin and sacrifice are not popular themes that people flock to see on the big screen. No where was this more evident than the theater I watched this film in. The overwhelming sentiment by those who sat through the film was one of disappointment and frustration. They wanted to see Eastwood do what Eastwood does, namely, take vengeance into his own hands. But what Gran Torino gives us isn’t what we expect. It is pure, unadulterated Gospel. It may be one of the clearest portraits of the work of Christ that I have ever seen in film.
Those who watched it in my theater were indicative of a culture that missed the deep truths that were staring them right in the face from the front of the room. We read in 2 Corinthians 4:4, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Glimpses of that glory were on the silver screen last night, but very few had the lenses to see.
It should be noted that the film does have quite a bit of language, many, many racial epithets and one brief glimpse over a man’s shoulder as he looks at an inappropriate magazine. So you should go in with your eyes open (or maybe closed). But I will tell you now you will leave with your heart stirred and your mind fixated on the Gospel. So I recommend it with the mentioned caveats, but the truth is it may be one of the most meaningful pictures you will have seen in years. After you watch it, go home and read 2 Corinthians 5:21, bow your head and thank your Father for the glories of the Gospel.
Photo Stream
