While Christians may disagree, we may not remain indifferent saying that it doesn't really matter. The implications of this doctrine run deep - yes, even experientially deep. While some may cringe, I have personally seen some weep with humble gratitude. It changed them.
Why can't we remain indifferent? Because everyone limits the atonement; and it matters much where we place the limitation. Consider the maxim from Owen's Death of Death
: God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:1. All of the sins of all men (the universalist's view).
2. Some of the sins of all men.
3. All of the sin of some men.
The first option will not be considered in this post considering it is not accepted within the boundaries of historical orthodoxy.
The second option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for some of the sins of all men. Now, many people (who disagree with option 3) balk at the statement that their view is "limited." But a simple question brings the balk into check - "Why do some for whom Christ died perish in hell?" The common answer is, "They perish because of their unbelief."
This statement, however, raises a vital question, "Is unbelief sin or not?" If it is not, then why are they punished for it? If it is, then Christ underwent punishment of hell for it on the Cross. And if Christ was punished for it, then God would be unjust to punish the same sin again, in hell. In summary, if a person undergoes punishment for a sin in hell, we cannot say that Christ underwent punishment for the same sin on the Cross.
The third option limits the atonement by saying Christ died for all of the sins of some men. If Christ underwent the pains of hell for all of the sins of a particular group of individuals - namely, the elect, then not one of them will ever undergo the pains of hell for any of their sins.
Allow a few thoughts for those who may disagree with Option 3.
1. This position is totally supported (and never contradicted) by Scripture.
2. Because of the nature of grace and mercy, both being totally free, Christ was under no obligation whatsoever to die for all.
3. Because of the sinful, fallen nature of mankind, it should shock us that He decided to die for any.
4. That this doctrine is an occasion for great comfort - Hell is not an option for those who are in Christ.
5. That, at the Cross, Christ did not "try" to save; but actually saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21).
Take comfort, therefore, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - He is the Savior of the world!
Very clear and concise post on what can be a stumbling block for many. I especially like your third point at the bottom, "because of the sinful, fallen nature of mankind, it should shock us that He decided to die for any." How great our God is!
ReplyDeleteJust to have a friendly debate here, what do you say to the question, "If limited atonement is true, and no payment has been made for the non-elect, then how can God genuinely love the world and desire the salvation for all people?" (I know you'll realize I'm taking this from Driscoll's book, Doctrine)
ReplyDeleteAlso, what are your thoughts on Unlimited Limited Atonement? That Jesus died for the sins of all people, which includes the elect, but that his death didn't accomplish the same thing for all people as it does for the elect. Driscoll sites 1 Timothy 4:10, "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe," and 2 Peter 2:1.
So he's basically saying, "by dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect..."
Thoughts?
If a judge has a murderer for a son - he can both love the son, while executing justice upon him. In this sense, He IS loving the son, by honoring something bigger than the son. Just b/c He loves, He doesn't have to acquit.
ReplyDeleteOn the second point, I hate to come across too simple. If Jesus died for the sins of a people, those people will not die for those sins in hell. If anyone perishes in hell, we cannot say that Jesus "atoned" for them. We'd have to call it something else.
he was not their "propitiation" by the strict definition of the word.
I would suggest you get Morris's Apostolic Preaching of the Cross for an in-depth discussion on the definition of hilesterion (I think that is how it is transcribed).
Peace,