Atonement

I wanted to do a quick follow-up post in response to the comments of Adam on my previous post. Maybe this will allow me to more particularly express my ever-evolving views.

First let me quote Charles Spurgeon...
“I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.”

LOGIC

Adam pointed out that many non-Reformed believers will disagree with me that universal atonement and universalism are essentially the same. I can not understand how they could challenge my asumption. It logically follows that:

If, the effect of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement was to pay the penalty for sin

If, that that work is applied universally to all men, not a limited portion (universal atonement)

Then, the sin penalty for all men is erased.

Furthermore...

If, being cleansed of sin is the requirement for eternal life with God

If, all men are cleansed of sin

Then, all men are going to spend eternity with God (universalism)

These are logical formulations and God is a God whose very nature is revealed to us as logical. So, it is easy to see how universal atonement leads directly to universalism.

THE ARMINIAN RESPONSE

If the non-Reformed believer wants to side-step this kind of logic then he must argue that there is another layer between universal atonement and universalism that I have left out...free will.

Most Arminians will hold that Jesus death at Calvary was only providing possible salvation thru prevenient grace and that in order for that salvation to be effective, the individual believer must act of their own free volition in response.

The problem with this is that it make the cross nothing but a limp piece of wood with a symbollic martyr on it. If we must exercise faith in order for the work of Christ to be a saving work - then it is WE not HE that secure our salvation.

Kim Riddlebarger says that the Arminiam system leads to a place where we can "...no longer affirm that it is God who saves sinners...rather, it is sinners who save themselves, with God's help."

Or J.I. Packer, "We speak of [Christ's] redeeming work as if he had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God's love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence at the door of our hearts' for us to let them in."

WHO GETS THE GLORY?

This is a man-centered view of soteriology and it is not taught in Scripture. Clearly the Word teaches that it is God who saves us...see John 15:16

"You did not choose me, but I chose you..." these are the words of Christ. In this passage he is speaking to his disciples in historical context and to all of us in theological application. It can not be clearer - God saves us, we do not save ourselves in any form or fashion. To allow that we have even a small part on which our salvation depends is to diminish the glory of our sovereign Lord.

FOUR OR FIVE POINTS...

As a last note - I do not hold to Amyraldian atonement or "four-point Calvinsim." This is the idea that in order to reconcile certain passages of Scripture (like 2 Peter 3:9) we must believe that God had two things going on at the cross. First, God benevolently wanted all to be saved and he ordained the death of Christ to provide this salvation as an offer for all alike. However, as he saw that none would turn towards him of their own will (due to total depravity) he effected to sovereignly save the elect and thus make Christ's death effective only for them.

I understand this view. I think it is a far-reaching way to explain these troublesome passages, but I think that it is good-natured. However, I see these verses best explained when the words and paragraphs are viewed in context. Everytime we read "the world" or "all" it does not mean "every single human being ever made." When they are examined on a case by case basis, the proof texts for Amyraldianism do not hold up. Take the 2 Peter example.

Wonderful Bible teacher and preacher, John Piper, states that understanding 2 Peter 3:9 is all about understanding why God delays the second coming of Christ. It is not that God is slow in his promise, rather he is patient towards mankind. He is waiting for his redemptive plan to play out and for all of his sheep (the certain number of Gentiles in Romans 11:25) to come into the fold. This delay is so that all the sheep (those he chose, who know him) may come to repentance and that none would perish. Once we see the passage in context, it is very difficult to read it as if it was applicable to all men across all time. In fact, we see how it easily supports the limited atonement view.

CONCLUSION

Well, I have written far too much for my exhausted mind tonight. I hope this has expounded on what I believe and what I think Scripture tells us about who Christ died for. I am not looking to create prideful arguments with Christian brothers. I sincerely hold that the difference between a non-Reformed and a Reformed theology is extremely influential on how one sees the nature of God and the work of the cross. The viewpoint that someone holds about this inevitably affects how they see every aspect of their Christian walk. Once again, I want to stress that my view does not lead to a debunking of the Great Commission or the end of evangelism and missions (as some suggest). In fact, as John Calvin and Augustine have said:

"Because we
know not who belongs to the number of the predestinated, or does
not belong, our desire ought to be that all may be saved; and hence
every person we meet, we will desire to be with us a partaker of
peace."

Amen