Comments on: Limited Atonement

By: bryan

bryan — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:58:42 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:34:08 +0000

I’d just like to say ditto to this:

http://apuritansmind.com/TULIP/LimitedAtonement.htm

By: bryan

bryan — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:40:11 +0000

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.

By: jethro bodine

jethro bodine — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:11:43 +0000

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.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:34:36 +0000

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!

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:56:40 +0000

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.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:49:20 +0000

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.

By: Aaron Shafovaloff

Aaron Shafovaloff — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:27:30 +0000

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

By: Myke Shawhan

Myke Shawhan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:59:16 +0000

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.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:57:53 +0000

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.