Unlimited Atonement
- “The doctrine that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons.” – Ron Rhodes
- “The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.” – Wikipedia
- “Jesus’ intent was to die for the sins of all humanity.” – Trevin Wax
Regarding the Christian doctrine of the atonement, I have commonly used the terms general, limited and universal. I have recently noticed that there seems to be a growing trend of using the terminology “unlimited atonement” (or it may be me just now raising my head from the sand, catching up with progress and noticing what is going on). Above are listed three definitions of “unlimited atonement,” which seem to be in substantial agreement. The common thread is that Christ’s redemptive death was for the benefit of all people. On the one hand I understand the definition. On the other hand a category that embraces everything from 4-point Calvinism to Universal Salvation seems both strange and not particularly useful to me. Despite technical difficulties about “limited atonement” there is little more than a dime’s worth of difference between the 4-point and 5-point Calvinists – while there is a million dollars’ worth of difference between the 4-point Calvinist and the Universal Salvationist. While the 4-point Calvinist and the Traditionalist/Extensivist both sit together under the “unlimited atonement” umbrella, there is more than a little difference in their positions – so much so that many on both sides will not fellowship with one another.
Some seem to celebrate the “unlimited” and “limited” differences of 4-point and 5-point Calvinists, which I find curious. One motivation, if I detect not wrongly, is to support the idea that “unlimited atonement” was and is the position of the majority of Christians. Jesse Mercer said there is only a “mere shade” of difference “unlimited” and “limited” atonement, and that difference “is only speculative.” In practical terms what difference does it make to say that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to save them (the position of 4-point Calvinism)? Much of this discussion from all sides is useless theological speculation. Trevin Wax put it this way, “The debates regarding the extent of the atonement place a foreign paradigm on the biblical text and thus inevitably bring forth answers that are skewed by our presupposed theological framework.”
3 comments:
Robert,
"In practical terms what difference does it make to say that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to save them (the position of 4-point Calvinism)? Much of this discussion from all sides is useless theological speculation."
A couple of notes. First, as I mentioned on the other thread, few have accepted Mercer's assessment that there is but a "mere shade" of difference amounting exclusively to speculation between limited and unlimited atonement. From Dort to today, some of the most serious and intellectual giants of the church, many of whom were and are mainstream Reformed, wrangled over this issue. While the discussion in part was theologically-philosophically driven to be sure, a substantial portion of it was exegetically based, and therefore far from mere speculation. Both sides in many cases textually argued their positions.
Second, you query what difference it makes to say Christ’s death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to save them. While your question warrants an answer, the answer lies within the way the question itself is framed. That is, the extent of the atonement (for all or some), intent of the atonement (for what purpose God designed Christ's death to accomplish) , and application of the atonement (how the salvific benefits are applied to those being saved) are all collapsed into one. Allen plugs this point repeatedly in his work--and rightly so, I might add. While it's true the extent, intent, and application of Christ's cross-work should not be separated, they nonetheless must be distinguished. Fuller, et al came to see this as a defining characteristic for biblically grounding the well-meant offer of the gospel to all people, not just to the elect as the Hyper-Calvinists had come to believe. On the one hand, Mercer's "mere shade" of difference led to one of the darkest moments in Particular Baptist history; while, on the other hand, Mercer's "mere shade" of difference motivated Fuller as a theological wench to pull Particular Baptists out of the unbiblical quagmire into which they had descended.
Know we share a common passion for church history, and Baptist history at that. I appreciate your interests in exploring our ecclesial past and look forward to what you dig up and put on display.
Lord bless.
With that, I am...
Peter
Thanks for your further comments, Peter.
To be sure, I think there are texts to be discussed and cases to be made about them. Nevertheless, I think much of the debate on Calvinism, Arminianism, and extent of the atonement -- which I find interesting -- hinges on folks trying to get all their philosophical and systematic ducks in a row. There are some texts that sound limited, some that sound general, and some that sound universal. If intellectual gaints haven't gotten them figured out in a couple thousand years, I doubt I will in my threescore and ten. I suppose the better route is to believe that God himself saves whomever he will, and that our duty is to preach the gospel to every creature just like he said.
Comment and clarification: In the original post, since I don't have a specific post on my site, I linked to a definition of universal salvation on the Christian Universalist Association. I think this is sufficient to explain what is meant by universal salvation, but I doubt that they believe in the atonement in the classic Christian sense of the term.
Post a Comment