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.
One of my favorite documents on this subject is, “Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments“, by Bruce Ware. Ware argues for what he calls the “Multiple Intentions View”. He summarizes it like this:
I’ve always thought John Piper was a heartbeat away from this position, since he talks a lot like this too.
As a five point Calvinist, I will admit that this point is not as important to defend as other things. I know other “5 pointers” would disagree, and defend it so adamantly that division would be the only way out. I believe what is most important is maintaining a right understanding of our place before God and his Sovereignty. Having said that, I do actually believe Limited Atonement is the best explanation on the work of Atonement. So let me put forth a better understanding of this view (after a couple quick responses to Bryan’s post).
As to Calvin’s position:
I understand why Bryan inserts this consideration, the system is known as the five points of “Calvinism”. However, whether or not Calvin completely agreed with this view ultimately makes no difference what so ever. If anything, it proves that the authorities at Dort weren’t just cool-aid drinkers. Besides, the “hero” of Protestantism, Martin Luther, has lots of doctrines we don’t agree with. We still revere these men as pioneers of the reformation. But if the reformation teaches us anything, it’s that we find our final authority in the scriptures, not with men.
Now to logic:
Extending a doctrine out to logical ends is still within the bounds of scripture as long as it is not elsewhere sufficiently countered in the scriptures. More plainly stated, just because a position is best described through reason and logic, this doesn’t automatically rule it out. (I am not ignoring Bryan’s scripture references; I am just dealing with logic right now)
Example – let’s use another well known (and one of the more important) doctrines of Christianity, the Trinity. Nowhere in scripture is the word “trinity” actually even used. As a monotheistic (one God) religion, the idea of multiple “persons” in one Godhead is uncomfortably close to polytheism (many Gods). And yet the doctrine is logically explained. There are many passages that speak of “one God”, “no other Gods”, etc. But then also there are the passages attributing Deity to God, Jesus, and the Spirit. So a logical conclusion is that there is a new perspective on the nature of God that never would have crossed the minds of the prophets.
All this to say, don’t rule out the position of Limited Atonement just because of a logical understanding.
Now to my argument:
I agree with Bryan’s original assertion that the letters in TULIP do indeed “…accurately convey the central ideas of each point.”, but for the sake of perspective, I would like to suggest another alternate for “Limited Atonement”, and “Particular Redemption”. Though TUDIP is less pleasing to the ears, “Definite Atonement” may be a better way of explaining this particular point. The thrust of the position is that the atonement is not just possible, but definite. However I will still use “Limited” in my argument because the end result of the point is that there is a limit to the purpose of the atonement.
Both positions place a limit somewhere, the question is where. First I would like to point out neither of the positions places a limit on the value of Christ’s sacrifice. As God, His accomplished work was more than sufficient to pay for the sins of every being that ever lived or will live. The question really boils down to purpose. The purpose of Christ’s death was not to make salvation merely possible, but to make it secure. The atonement accomplished something, namely it paid a debt. It is only efficient for those who believe. Unlimited Atonement would in effect make no one guilty before God.
The individual that goes to hell is not judged guilty based solely on his denial of Christ (otherwise what of those who never heard of Him). He is sentenced based on his sins. Even without the written law, man is guilty before God, (Romans 1:18-21). So if Christ’s atonement is applied to all men then why don’t all men go to heaven? If there is anyone in hell, what are they there for? If you answer “they are there because of their sins”, then Christ’s sacrifice was of no effect to them. The Atonement was not applied to them – it is limited to those who believe.
Charles Ryrie tries to explain Unlimited Atonement by saying atonement is somehow placed in an account for each person, and some individuals never access it (maybe they lost their PIN number). But even if that is the case, it still remains that Christ’s sacrifice does nothing for them – not because his sacrifice was impotent, but because it was not applied to them; because it was not for them (purpose). So then, again, it is limited to those who believe.
This is best understood as a system (thank you Dort).
T.U.L.I.P.
God elects some to eternal life (because of T, they get U)
Christ secures their salvation (L)
The Spirit regenerates those people (I), and seals them (P).
So what do we do with verses that say Jesus died for all men? Bryan listed the key verses used to counter the Limited view. I don’t see a controversy here. In a very real sense He did die for the sins of the world – in that no one else did (or could). Jesus is the one who did the dying. If they wanted salvation, it was there, Christ did the necessary work. This speaks to the value of the atonement. If God wanted everyone to be saved He could have applied the sacrifice to every single person. Jesus didn’t have to die again, or suffer longer, it was enough.
But His death wasn’t for everyone in another, more specific sense, namely application (say it with me: purpose). His death is of NO effect for the unbeliever. If His death does not save the unbeliever from the wrath of God, then there is a limit on the atonement.
Just a couple Scripture references to ponder:
John 6:37 … Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him.
II Corinthians 5:21 … For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Matthew 20:28 … Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for (instead of, in the place of) many.”
I John 4:10 … Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
There are dozens more, please research them all. Do a quick search on Google for “Limited Atonement”.
Myke,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I really appreciate your interaction. Whatever term you prefer (definite atonement, particular redemptionism, limited atonement) the same content issues still remain. The texts that I mentioned are soteriological. The five-point perspective has not adequately dealt with the intent of these texts in their system. This is makes it lack exegetical teeth.
The crux of my issue with what you have said is the crux of my issue with the five-point system. You have made what I think is afalse equivocation that does not fit with the text of Scripture. On a couple of occasions you have equated the “purpose” of the atonement with the “effect” of the atonement. But as hte article Aaron cited and as the unlimited perspective teaches there are mutiple purposes. This is why I think that Bruce Ware’s article actually is a Calvinistic rendition of unlimited atonement. The tragedy is that some (read “Sproul”) have set up a false paradigm where if you believe in limited atonement you are not a real Calvinist. Such a view creates a straw man. So Ryrie (while not as Calvinistic as I am) would not say that the non effectual aspect of the atonement is purposeless. That was my whole point in stating that there is a purpose to the non-effectual part of the atonement, namely, a demonstration of the love of Christ to rebellious people that will reject God eternally. Because the definite atonement position has no adequate exegetical means of dealing with the textual evidence I mentioned they struggle to articulate more than an effectual purpose for the atonement. Calvinist’s holding to unlimited atonement believe in an effectual purpose but they do ot believe that the text teaches that that is hte end of hte story. Purpose does not equal effect it equals intent and the intent was beyond, but included God’s securing of an elect people for Himself.
I guess my problem with the unlimited view is similar to your problem with the limited view. So we are both in the same boat (except we are paddling in opposite directions). I don’t believe that the fact that God’s wrath still hangs on people in hell has been sufficiently explained with the unlimited view.
I do agree completely that these texts show God’s love to all people, but that love does not equal salvation in any case for those outside of His salvation. Every scripture you have cited, and many others, teach that God has a general love for all that he has created, but people still go to hell. So while I can see another “purpose” here, the point of Jesus’s death and resurrection wasn’t to merely show he loves people. The verses I cited have to do with the sacrifice actually accomplishing something – that being paying a debt, being the ransom, propitiation, etc.
I do equate purpose with effect, but not because I don’t see other “purposes”, but because the main purpose (as I see it) is actual salvation, not just a show of love. He shows his love to us in lots of ways (including his dying), but the reason for dying can’t be about a show of love, otherwise all that suffering would be fruitless. The “purpose” even in your cited passages points to a completed work, not to a general show of love. So where I see other “lesser” purposes, I see the “main” purpose as salvation.
(I love this topic – is anyone else enjoying this?)
I think in many ways we are saying the same thing. You agree with me that there are multiple purposes to the atonement. I agree with you that there is a main purpose, namely, the salvation of the elect. My whole point is that the texts I mentioned speak in soteriological contexts about a purpose in the atonement for the non-elect. I will gladly grant that the main purpose remains the salvation of the elect. So in my theology I can account for all of the passages that you are citing that particularize the atonement. But the person who holds to a definite atonement has to make room for those texts that speak about the atonement in regard to the non-elect. No Calvinist who believes in unlimited atonement is implying that all will be saved or any type of neo-universalism. That is heresy. But a theological opinion can’t be formed without accounting for all of the biblical data. So there are clearly multiple purposes (which we agree on) with a main purpose (which we agree on). But this is unlimited atonement. There is a reason why exegetes from the limited atonement perspective desperately try to explain these texts away: because they know that they have to account for them in someway that can fit within their system. So Myke I submit to you that you actually believe in a thoroughly Calvinistic variety of unlimited atonement. Don’t worry even if Sproul disowns you…I never will!
Don’t get on the phone yet…(I know you have Sproul on speed-dial).
I maintain my position firmly in the Limited camp. You said there is no way to account for the passages with regards to the soteriological value towards non-elect in a Limited view. I disagree. I believe there are explanations that are not desperate attempts, but rather valid attempts to explain difficult verses. In the same way, I could charge the unlimited proponents with desperately trying to hide the effect of the atonement in relation to those damned. So if we both see the effect of the atonement as strictly for the elect (so you can avoid universalistic heresy), then I submit you actually believe in a limitation on the atonement!
Myke you are a good thinker and a man of God and I am glad you are my friend and in our church, now enough of that, let’s get down to business. I see the a limited purpose and an unlimited purpose. I have no theological issue with the what the limited purpose implies for the damned. I can certainly affirm Dort’s position of reprobation. My original post laid out three issues, history, theology, and exegesis. The first two are functionally a wash since both approaches cohere logically and both have roots in an accepted historic orthodoxy. The dividing point is the text. While my use of “desperate” to describe the attempts of those supporting definite atonement may have been a bit too hyperbolic, I will say their attempts are inadequate. Interpretations of the 1 Jn. 2:2 passage do not do justice to its historical context (which I talked about inthe original post) and its descriptive content. Attempts to explain the 1 Timothy 4:10 passage have run so far afield by five-pointers that I am actually shocked that they don’t stop to wonder why their perspective makes them be so “creatively” exegetical. I accept all limited passages at face value and all unlimited passages at face value. Please let me know some valid attempts at exegeting these passages by definite atonement supporters that treat them soteriologically as both contexts demand. By the way Sproul’s line is busy.
I will give answers to your texts, but since you have already said all current attempts have been “inadequate”, I doubt I will give you anything satisfactory. But who knows, maybe this will be the one that pushes you over the top.
1 Timothy 4:10
I already put in my original post an answer to this so-called “problem” (though not specifically this verse), but I will try to elaborate here. I see Jesus (salvation) offered to all people generally. Just as in election itself, God already knows who he has chosen, but the offer is given to all. But only a special group (elect) will have that salvation. So there is a certain group who will experience the “inward” call to salvation that the general population (non-elect) will not experience. The same idea is present with the atonement, Jesus is the salvation of the world (everyone) in a general sense, in that he is the only means of salvation, there is no other. But in a specific sense, only the elect experience Him as savior (which explains Paul saying “especially”).
1 John 2:2
This verse, in my opinion, is easily explained by the “world” referencing all elect around the world. I know you commented on this one in your original post, and somewhat dismissed it as ridiculous (my reading – you may not have intended that). But I don’t see it as trying to explain away, I see it as a perfectly legitimate use of an idiom. Just because the audience is gentile (read: Greek), doesn’t mean John wasn’t extending the idea to cover the Chinese, Indians, Himalayans, etc.
Now you keep using the phrase “soteriological context” when referring to these texts, and wanting a limited view explanation for them. I believe the onus is on you to explain them from an unlimited viewpoint. Show me how Jesus is Propitiation or Savior to those who are in hell.
Let’s grant the traditional view of “L” for a moment and consider something. One minute before I put my faith in Christ, and thus appropriated the propitiation that Christ accomplished on my behalf, I was under the wrath of God, was I not? Even in the theology of limited atonement, there is usually—unless you hold to some unwarranted view of eternal justification—a sense in which you went from being unjustified and condemned to justified and saved.
So it seems an adherent of the traditional view of limited atonement uses an objection that could similarly (but not equally) be used on himself. Like Myke objects that a person in hell surely never had a propitiation done on their behalf, I would ask, concerning an elect person who has yet to believe: Why is such a person unjustified, guilty, and under the wrath of God if a propitiation was done on their behalf?
Not embracing “eternal justification” forces one to make some sort of distinction where a person can be propitiated for but yet still be under the wrath of God. And if that kind of distinction can be made, then it seems part of the main logical argumentation behind the traditional doctrine of “L” loses its force.
All that said, I personally still believe that the atonement necessarily secures something for the elect that it doesn’t for the reprobate (namely, the new covenant benefits of a new heart and saving faith, which in turn appropriate more benefits of the atonement the non-elect will never have). So in that sense I still believe the atonement has a Calvinistic, “particular” intention behind it in addition to a general and universal intention.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Myke,
I actually think your explanation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is an unlimited atonement explanation. It really fits the paradigm. Regarding the 1 Jn. 2:2 text I think that the descriptors make the idea that “world” means “types of people” or that it is some type of idiom is not warranted by the text or its best reading. Idioms can be read into a number of places, it seems a bit creative to do that in the 1 Jn. text. I know we just disagree on this issue, but it is fun to talk about nonetheless. My offering of an explanation is that Jesus is the Savior of the world in that he is sufficient to save all and in that sense he has secured an atonement value for the sin of all but that value is applied to the elect by his sovereign will in providing the requisite faith they need to respond to Him. When I use the phrase “soteriological context”, I am speaking about the atonement language used. Often people try to interpret these texts to fit their system by making the part about the elect seem sotriological and the other part (as in the 1 Tim. 4:10 case) seem non-soteriological. I do not mean that he applies the atonement or anything like that. What I mean is that he fulfills one of his lesser purposes. So for those in hell Jesus is their rejected Savior. They receive no effective benefit, but they can never say He did not love them or demonstrate that love. Thanks for the discussion.
Aaron,
Interesting thought. I think that Ware’s view is basically a Calvinistic view of unlimitied atonement. However I am beginning to think that his terminology may be more productive since it acknowedges both facets up front. Certainly their is an effective intent but that is not the whole story of the text.
All I can say is I am really enjoying this dialogue. Myke and Bryan both, thank you brother for being so articulate in this gracious conversation. Good stuff gentlemen!
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation (hilasmos) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2) ESV
The understanding presented by Bryan is as follows (please correct me if I’m wrong) : Christ is the propitiation for all Christians, and not for Christians only, but also for every single person in all places and at all times. The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation to all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.
If there was not so much emotional energy involved in the debate the means of determining which interpretation is the proper one would be agreed to by all: the meaning of “propitiation” would be examined. The meaning of “Advocate” would be deduced. And then John’s writing would be studied to see how he uses the phrase “the whole world” and what other phrases/descriptions could be paralleled with it. For example, such a study would find the following passage, also from the pen of John, relevant:
And they sang a new song, saying,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10) ESV
Such a passage is relevant for it 1) speaks of Christ’s death and His blood; 2) speaks of Christ’s “ransoming” men for God; 3) presents a specific description of the extent of this work of redemption, that being “ people…from every tribe and language and people and nation…” I suggest, then, that this passage sheds significant light upon 1 John 2:2, for it is obvious that the passage in Revelation is not saying that Christ purchased every man from every tribe and language and people and nation. Yet, obviously, this is a parallel concept to “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2. Similarly, we can find yet another passage in John’s writing that provides parallel information:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52) ESV
Again, we note the exegetical relevance: 1) the death of Christ is in the context; 2) the object of the death of Christ is discussed and identified; 3) a generic term “people” is more closely identified as “the children of God who are scattered abroad.” Clearly the point of the passage is that Christ dies with a specific purpose in mind, so that he might gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. Nothing is said about making them “savable.” His death enables Him to gather them together into one (fulfilling John 6:38-39). And we likewise see the direct relevance to 1 John 2:2 and the meaning of “the whole world”.
In conclusion, nowhere in 1 John chapter 2 do we have John teaching that Christ’s death makes satisfaction for “the whole world.” Can we see the result of this assertion? If this use of world is to be taken in the extensive, universal sense of every individual, this passage now tells us not to love all men (1 John 2:15)! Is this what Bryan seriously wishes to suggest? I would hope not. When the passage says that these evil impulses come not from the father but from the world, the antithesis points to the world as the present evil system not the universal population of mankind. We here have a classic example of what Bryan accuses the Reformed of: eisegesis, reading into the passage a meaning that it could never have borne when first written.
Jason,
Thanks for your comments regarding this point of Calvinism. Certainly you have presented a plausible interpretation of 1 John 2:2. However I disagree with both your interpretation and your assessment of my exegesis on a few counts. First, I think you might be unclear on how I see the term “world” functioning in the New Testament. Certainly “world” takes on a variety of meanings that range from all civilization/society at large to physical earth to other realms (heaven, future new Heaven and New Earth) to the system of ideology that opposes God (one of the most prevalent uses) this is not exhaustive but you get the point.
Second since you appropriately want to stay contextual and since we should guard against exegesis let’s look at the uses of kosmos in 1 John. This is the word translated as “world” in the text you brought up (1 Jn. 2:2). The term is used in four varying forms 23 times in 1 John. Of the the 23 uses of the term 16 times it is used clearly referring to the “system opposed to God”; 3 times it is a bit ambiguous about whether it is referring to “the system opposed to God” or “civilization/society at large”; 3 times it is clearly referring to “civilization/society at large” and the other time it is used is in the text in question (1 Jn. 2:2). You should immediately notice that in the survey of its usages not once is it referring to another group of Christians as you are suggesting that 2:2 does. In fact every other use is either referring to those opposed to God or to society in a general sense. The restrictive sense that you are seeking is not to be found in 1 John. SO I don’t think I would call my interpretation eisegesis even if you disagree. At this point any eisegesis seems to be coming from the other direction.
Third, one other time in 1 John the same Greek terms are put together to say “whole world”, it is in 1 John 5:19, which reads: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. Is this referring as well to another group of Christians? I certainly hope not. Rather here, the “whole world” is juxtaposed to believers (the children of God). It seems that the clear weight of exegetical evidence from 1 John is in favor of seeing whole world in 2:2 actually meaning whole world in the broadest sense.
Fourth, and I think self-evident at this point is the fact that in 1 Jn. 2:15 the term “world” means the “system that is opposed to God” as it does 15 other times. Indeed I am exhorted not to love that system, your insinuation that I am suggesting that it says we should not love all men has not taken into account that I see “world” having the varies meanings that I have already mentioned.
Fifth, regarding your comments about propitiation, there is a distinction to be made between provision/sufficiency and application/efficiency. Of course not all of the world is redeemed (If you have ever heard me teach you would know that I am no universalist) but God demonstrated the breadth of his love in providing a sacrifice sufficient for all, even though the non-elect will reject him they will never be able to say that he did not demonstrate his love for them.
Sixth regarding the other passages that you brought up. I agree with your interpretation of them. “World” or other terms communicating a similar idea don’t always mean all of society/civilization. So in those texts a limited efficacy is in view as it should be. But clearly “world” sometimes does actually mean “all of society/civilization”. So those texts you brought up are just as much a part of my theology as they are yours. Thanks for getting me to dig a little deeper, I feel even better about my position. I do appreciate the good thought that you put into your post. Grace and peace.
I’d just like to say ditto to this:
http://apuritansmind.com/TULIP/LimitedAtonement.htm
Thanks Richard, I read the article and two things come to mind as it relates to the discussion posted thus far on this blog post:
1. Since when is there only one purpose in the atonement. Certainly there is an efficacious purpose to redeem the elect. But it doesn’t stop there. This is my trouble with limited atonement. The idea that there is only one purpose (to redeem the elect) misses both the multifaceted nature of the atonement and fails to deal with many important texts that clearly broaden its focus as I have mentioned in previous responses on this issue (texts like 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 Jn. 2:2)
2. The article says literally nothing about the texts I just mentioned. These are key texts in this debate but they are completely sidestepped and not dealt with. My biggest objection against limited atonement is that it fails to do justice to all of the biblical data. The argument from “logic” can be employed for either position, but the data doesn’t square well with the “limited” perspective at all in my opinion. I think my word study of “kosmos” in 1 John demonstrates this to be the case at least in that text.
Thanks for posting.