![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
I stirred nervously
in my seat, and cleared my throat. I was not at all sure I wanted to ask
the next question, but I also realized I had to. "You have already
told me you have no desire to be called a 'Calvinist."' "That is correct,"
Martin nodded. "Is this just a
concern over party labels, or is there any key theological area where you
disagree with the Calvinists?" "How do you
mean?" "Well, I was talking
with someone at my home church, and he told me something that horrified
me. He said that Calvinists believe in something they call limited
atonement. They think that Jesus only died for Christians, and not for
all men. Martin laughed, and
then said, "I'll answer your question, if you promise to hear me
out." I had a sinking
feeling that this meant he did believe it, but I nodded my head
anyway. "First, all orthodox
Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes
that there is an eternal Hell limits the atonement. One group limits its
power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit
the atonement." I nodded, so he went
on. "Secondly, I don’t
know who came up with the phrase limited atonement to describe this
position. He may have been a theological genius, but when it comes to
public relations, he must have been a chucklehead." "In what way?" I
asked. "One fellow says he
believes in a limited atonement, and another says he believes in an
unlimited atonement. Which one appears to be doing justice to the
Scriptures?" "The second one, of
course." Martin smiled. "Of
course. God so loved the world; Behold the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world; One died for all, and so
forth." I nodded again,
wondering where on earth he was going. "Now suppose we hear
the same two fellows, but this time the language is changed. The first
says now that he believes in a definite atonement, and the second
affirms his belief in an indefinite atonement. Who sounds more
biblical now?" "Well, now the first
sounds more biblical." "Of course. Christ
laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church
and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that He might redeem
us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a
definite end in view for a definite group of people." "Okay. Then it seems
to me that when it is put the first way it shows that one group does
justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the
second way, it shows that their theological opponents do justice to the
efficient purpose of the redemption. And both sides have their
verses." "But both sides, if
they believe that the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of
verses." "How can you do that?
If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some
of the universal passages you quoted earlier?" "One of the reasons I
object so strongly to terms like limited atonement is that it does
nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that many have in their
minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He
died. But there is no reason we must believe that the number was a small
one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with
nothing less than a saved world." "Do you believe that
there will be more people saved than lost?" "Certainly. It says
in 1 John 2:2 that He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but also for the whole world." "Wait a minute," I
said. "That just means that every person can be forgiven for their sins if
they come to Christ." "But that is not what
it says. It says that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world.
Propitiation means that God's wrath is turned aside. If Christ is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then God's wrath is turned
away from the whole world." I sat silently for a
moment, and Martin went on. "Notice how the verse
does not read. It doesn't say that He is the propitiation for our
sins, because we believed, and not only for ours, but He is a potential
propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we
know they won’t.” I laughed. "Well, I
agree it doesn’t say that." "See, the difficulty
with verses like this, from the universalist standpoint, is that they
prove too much." "What do you mean by
that?" "The Bible teaches
that Christ's death is powerful to save. This power comes through
in many of the universal passages. So I reject the position that wants the
universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words,
there is no potential propitiation in I John 2:2. It is actual.
Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned
aside from the world." "Does this present
any Calvinists with a problem?" "It surely does. When
the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no
grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the
same time, I believe it is impossible to refer such wonderful universal
statements to a tiny snippet of humanity." "I don't understand
you." "Suppose you went to
a football game at your school, and the attendance was spectacular. Would
you be lying if you said that the whole student body was there, when in
fact Jones was in his room sick?" I laughed.
"No." "But suppose you said
the whole student body was there, when it was just you and Jones. Would
there be a problem now?" "Certainly." "Because...
?" "Because in the first
instance my language would not be at all misleading, while in the second
instance it would be." "Correct. Those who
believe what the Bible says about election, but who believe the elect to
be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious
texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved
church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their
theological opponents are not much better. They turn glorious texts about
a saved world into texts about a world which could be saved, but
probably won't be." "So if we continue in
this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather
eschatology?" "Well, yes. Although
my eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would
take us off track at the present. Some future discussion perhaps? It
should suffice to say that the Bible teaches us about an atonement that is
efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All
those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the
world." "And you are saying
that this is different than saying Christ died for each and every
person." "Yes. The problem
people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute
mean the same thing by for." "What do you
mean?" "Given that not all
men are saved, contrast these two statements: First, Christ died for each
and every man. Second, Christ died for His people. "The word for
has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the
first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity
of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to
secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the
extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of
the atonement." "Can you illustrate
what you mean?" "Sure. Suppose you
have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing
out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says
he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give
money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about
the extent of generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is
being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the
gift is the same (money), while the generosity
varies." "Okay," I said. "What
is the debate about?" "In one view, the
philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to
an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if
they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $
100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out
in the street, stuffing the money into pockets. He is not giving away
opportunity; he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the
nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive
money?" I thought for a moment. "So in the area of salvation, you are saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men." "You've got
it." "Well, I think I
understand it anyway. But you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept what
you are saying right off. This is going to take some hard thinking and
Bible study." "That is exactly what it takes. And don't rush it. Don't agree to anything until you see it in the Scriptures. So which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?" |
||
![]() | ||
|
Texts on the Atonement 2 Corinthians
5:21 Galatians
1:3,5 Titus 2:14 1 Peter 3:18 Ephesians
5:25,27 Hebrews
13:12 Matthew
20:28 John 10:10 John 10:
14,18 John
10:25-30 John 17:1.11 And
now, 0 Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I
had with You before the world was. I have
manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the
world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your
word. Now
they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For
I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have
received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they
have believed that You sent Me. I pray
for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given
Me, for they are Yours. And all
Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in
them. Now I
am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You.
Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me,
that they may be one as We are.' John 17:20 John
17:24-26 Matthew
26:28 Romans 5:12 Romans
5:1749 John
11:49,52 Now
this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year
he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that
nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of
God who were scattered abroad. Romans
8:32-33 Hebrews 9:15 Hebrews
9:27-28 Revelation
5:9 | ||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
![]() | ||
![]() | ||
|
Click here to visit the Canon Press Web site.
|