The Missional Network

Most people I know who believe in Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption believe that, although Christ only effectual saved the elect on the cross, he secured the general blessings of God for all.  In other words, it is by Christ death and God's grace that God has patience with the unregenerate and gives blessings to both the righteous and the unrighteous.  However, if Christ does not bear the sin of all, how is he even able to secure general blessings for all?

Although I am a "Calvinist," I would not say that I agree with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. I believe that it is clearly taught in God's Word that Christ died for all, yet not all will accept that payment.

Paul's first letter to Timothy offers some answers here. In 1 Tim. 2:4 Paul writes that God, "desires all people to be saved." (see also 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, "one has died for all.") We can assume that Christ's death offers payment for the sins of all, yet what of the elect?

In 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul speaks of "the savior of all, especially of those who believe." Although Christ died and paid the penalty for all, the benefits of salvation are only applied to the elect...

Does this make sense?

---

"To God be the Glory"

I agree with Tubbs response.  Remember that "TULIP" and the associated doctrines were what was developed by Calvin's followers, not by Calvin himself.

While I am not strongly in either camp, I do feel that often the term "Calvinist" has come to be used by some people in the same derogatory way that they call some people "Liberals".  They say if you believe A, you have this label and since you have this label you must also believe B, C, D, etc.  Reformation theology is much deaper that 5 measly points.

While I don't claim to understand how it all goes together, I know that there are definitive statements that God CHOSE those he was going to save.  There are also definitive statements that say we have a free choice.  Just as nothing in physics can be a particle and a wave at the same time, nothing in our theological understanding can give God absolute sovereignty over men's choices at the same time as men have free choice.  But surprise! light is both a wave and a particle and it seems God's grace is based both on His absolute exclusive choice and our free choice to accept Him.

The biggest concern that many people have about reformation theology is that it seems to hamper evangelism.  History shows us that this is not so.  Some of the greatest revivals of all time have come from Reformation roots.  Some of the greatest evangelists have considered themselves 'Calvinists'.  Likewise there are many, many who claim the supremacy of human free will who have lost all desire to reach the lost.

While prevenient grace is often thougth of as an Arminian concept (God allowing everyone the free choice of salvation) and irresistable grace is thought to be Calvinist (God will choose whoever he wants and that person cannot reject him, nor can anyone else come to God without God's call), both concepts have plenty of Biblical support.  It seems to me that the Biblical track is not to fight the contest between these poles but to fight to understand how God harmonizes them.  Dr. Richard Land once explained his view of this in a Baptist History class:  the Baptist Faith and Message is NOT a Calvinist document, NOR is it an Arminian one, it is baptist. 

 

Calvinist	Arminian View	Baptist View	Explanation of Baptist Difference
Total Depravity	Seed of goodness	½-¾ agreement with Calvinists	All are depraved, but depravity is tempered by prevenient grace
Unconditional Election	Election Conditioned on Free Choice of individual	¾ agreement with Calvinists	Based on God's Foreknowledge
Limited Atonement	Unlimited Atonement	Disagreement with Calvinists
Irresistible Grace	Prevenient Grace	½ agreement with Calvinists	Prevenient Grace
Perseverance of the Saints/Savior.	Possible to Loose salvation.	Total agreement with Calvinists

I tend to agree with his view of this with the exception of his view of limited atonement and irresistible grace.  I would place limited atonement at ½ agreement.  While anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, I read passages such as Titus 3:5 to indicate that they won't call on Him unless God moves them.  Likewise, I would see Irresistible Grace as 99.99% agreement because I do believe that God can call anyone he wants such that they have no choice but to repent, but I also believe that there are many times (if not most) when God calls in a way that does give the recipient a choice.

---

In the Father and On the Journey
|K< |E[ \V/ ]I[ |N|
Kevin Finkenbinder
College Ministry Director
and Chruch Planter

Allow me to say that although I am a Calvinist, I do believe that it is our job, as the church, to DO evangelism. God has elected those to salvation and has called us to share the Word with them, that they may be saved (Romans 10).

---

"To God be the Glory"

I have, for some time, been much like Tubbs in my reformed theology. I've not been too keen to add Limited Atonement to my belief system and have often cringed at the idea. However, I have recently been confronted with some questions that are difficult for me to answer as I try to deny the doctrine of limited atonement. This is basically the idea that John Owen brings forth in his definitive work on the atonement The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

His point is basically this: If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, God would be unjust by sending anyone to Hell, because their sins would have been paid for by Jesus on the cross.

The objection to this is often that because of Jesus, God offers us the gift of salvation and we as the elect are regenerated and thus able to accept the gift of grace while the unregenerate are not. But it isn't theologically correct to view salvation as a gift in this manner. The death of Christ was, rather, the payment of our debt. We must die because of our sin. Christ died, the sin is paid. The debt is paid. Who did Christ die for??

If I owe 10 million to the bank, I will never be able to pay it off and I am legally going to pay a big price. But, if someone goes and pays my debt, I am no longer responsible for that debt. Even if I don't know about it. Even if I say, "no, I don't want this gift, I want to suffer," the bank and the law can do nothing, they cannot prosecute, because the debt has been paid. 

Jesus paid for the debt of sin on the cross. It is finished. If God sent sinners to Hell whose debt had already been paid, He would be unjust indeed.

This is an extremely difficult doctrine and is the most debated TULIP because it is least clearly expressed by scripture. I would never, and most respectable reformed folks do not, make this too big of an issue. However, I have been struggling with these questions, and with Owen's massive book. Someone challenged me to read it and then make my decision on the atonement. Maybe you should try the same challenge. Who knows, maybe you can even convince me of my error?

   

---

www.missionalstudents.typepad.com

Tubbs, I've just found this site and logged in less than 5 minutes ago and so, just came upon your post.  I'm "shooting from the hip" here but I'd like to reply.  I, too, would gladly identify myself as a Calvinist, being of historical Baptist persuasion.  And I don't mind getting past the I.D. nature of this venue and offer that I am a "5-pointer" as well.  So, that would go as far as embracing Limited (preferrably called Particular) atonement.

Might I offer that everyone's view of Atonement is that it is "Limited".  Even your, if you'll accept it.  It's either limited in it's effect or limited in its design.  Ask someone like yourself if Christ's death secure the salvation of the world and the answer is likely, "No".  Ask further, did His death secure the salvation of anyone in particular and the answer is still, "No".  So, this time of stand on Atonement is that it is "limited" in it's ability to save anyone at all.  As such this type of atonement paid no debt at all.  Then it must be asked what good is this kind of atonement?

On the other hand there are those, like myself, that also believe that Christ's atonement is "limited", just limited in DESIGN.  But at least it is an atonement that actually saves.  By being "particular" in that it is applied to the elect, it is "designed" to accomplished the work of a Savior who acts as a substitute for the debt owed.  To the same question as above - "Does it save?", the answer is a resounding "Yes!". 

You ended with the statement that "....Christ died and paid the penalty for all" but you hold that Atonement is not "Particular".  Just what debt is it you believe was paid?  The debt of sin?  But if it actually paid that debt, but atonement does not actually and assuredly save, then there must be those that are eternally lost for whom their debt has been paid.  ?????  Argueably this makes God caprious.  He acknowledges the payment of the debt but requires the sinner to pay anyway.  That's two payments.

I know your quandry.  Many wade about in it.  It's wanting both ends of the matter being too wavering to stand at one end.  It's a heavy burden.  You live hoping to find comfort somewhere in the middle where logic suffers.

Yeah....I change my mind everyday (seems like it)

 Since I wrote that hat earlier post, I have adopted Particular Redemption....I just needed some persuasion and wise counsel.

---

"To God be the Glory"

I just wanted to comment that your reply sounds a lot like the Wesley-Arminian argument that ther must be a response of man inorder to recieve the atonement. Most Calvinists would disagree, saying that if a response is nessesary then God didn't do the saving, but the man did in his response to the gospel. I am a Wesleyan and your explanation of the doctrine of election is very much like ours. that all men have the free will to eccept or not eccept the atonement. Christ did all the work on the cross but we must agree as an act of the will to recieve the grace that was given.