The topic of “limited atonement” has sparked more than its share of debate and antagonistic response. Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of clarity of this terminology, and the emotional response it often elicits. To that end, definite redemption might be a more accurate depiction. Another part of the problem is the fact that we tend to compartmentalize ourselves into an either-or mode. This modernistic brand of theologizing is both limiting and naive.
In my opinion, definite redemption is difficult to deny biblically. For instance Jesus said that He came to lay down His life for His sheep, etc. In the context of His redemptive labors, He appears to be saying that His cross work would actually accomplish something, that entailed more than a potential redemption, and that His salvific death is a part of God’s great plan that spans the ages. This kind of understanding, which is more “Calvinistic” in orientation, appears to flow out of certain texts and in particular from the mouth of Jesus Himself.
Of course there are also other texts that seem more universalistic in their intent. I believe a good number of these can be best understood as meaning something like “all without distinction,” that is, Jesus’ death is not limited to Israel or to some particular brand of human being. Some of the “world” texts (1 John 2:2) might also be interpreted this way. However, there might also be passages that lead to more general atonement theory (John 3:16?). This being the case, what stops us from categorizing the redemptive work of Jesus as a “both-and” type of situation?
In one sense, His cross work is for all. It is offered to all in complete sincerity by God Himself. As such, it contains enough “redemptive power” to redeem any and all who desire to partake of it by faith. The best Calvinists have maintained something close to this idea, but I also believe many of them have been governed more by logic (which is important) than a plain reading of certain “hard” passages (which is essential–these are those passages that don’t neatly fit a given system).
At any rate, Jesus’ death is genuinely offered to all and truly contains, if we can put it this way, enough “propitiatory potential” to satisfy God’s justice for any who want it. At the same time, though, His cross–while not being withheld from anyone–is particularly applied to those “sheep” He came to rescue.
Of course we now enter holy ground, and with it we encounter profound mystery. How can this be? In what sense is this fair? Does this not contradict those other passages that treat the atonement in a more general sense? All of these are good questions, and I believe they are worth pursuing. However, I also believe that a complete understanding of them is unavailable in this life. In good postmodern fashion, we are left with mystery and tension, but we are also provided a (modernistic?) model that fits all of the biblical data. This, I would suggest, is of supreme importance.
Some Calvinists, though rightly emphasizing the particularism of the atonement, have minimized the fullness and sufficiency of the cross for all. Indeed, John 3:16, that most famous of evangelistic passages, is, in the opinion of some, a general atonement passage. On the other hand, some non-Calvinists have gone in the other direction, and have accused God of unfairness and the like when it comes to His liberty to exercise His complete and just will.
As an aside, many postmoderns seem comfortable with free will, which is fine, but they don’t seem to accord to God the same privilege. Thus, they minimize God’s freedom in order to highlight man’s. Again, this is naive and imbalanced. Worse, it fails to do justice to the many passages that speak of God’s freedom. When it comes to discussing these matters, the desire to guard man’s free will (which is a good thing) often dictates the type of conclusions we allow for. Since particularism appears to limit human free agency, it is tempting to jettison God’s freedom. Two comments: (1) God is presented as King in Scripture. As a transcendent being, He calls the shots. (2) Man is free in some genuine sense, but his freedom is not absolute (and whatever it is, it is not as great as God’s). Man is free in some sense (although simultaneously bound by his fallenness and humanity). Of course the concept of freedom (intellectual and moral) is not easy to capture. Indeed, theologians and philosophers have for centuries debated its meaning. Thus, to admit free will–which is a biblical thing–is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God is bound or limited by the free choices of His creatures.
In my opinion, divine sovereignty and (a rightly nuanced) human freedom are very puzzling concepts, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians have completely solved this dilemma. This is part of the reason why I have shied away from such labels, for I question their ability to convey much that is helpful. Not only are there varieties of each type (i.e., Calvinists and Arminians), but the labels have tended to keep people from honestly and openly investigating the various pieces of the redemptive puzzle (e.g., “limited atonement”). Furthermore, they have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality among equally sincere believers. When this occurs, we are all the worse off. Let it suffice to say that I believe that Jesus’ death was both for everyone (in some true sense) and for a particular group (in some other sense). However one defines this position, it is my attempt to incorporate all of the relevant data into the discussion and to allow the whole counsel of God to have its mystery-making but worship-inducing way with us.
In my opinion, definite redemption is difficult to deny biblically. For instance Jesus said that He came to lay down His life for His sheep, etc. In the context of His redemptive labors, He appears to be saying that His cross work would actually accomplish something, that entailed more than a potential redemption, and that His salvific death is a part of God’s great plan that spans the ages. This kind of understanding, which is more “Calvinistic” in orientation, appears to flow out of certain texts and in particular from the mouth of Jesus Himself.
Of course there are also other texts that seem more universalistic in their intent. I believe a good number of these can be best understood as meaning something like “all without distinction,” that is, Jesus’ death is not limited to Israel or to some particular brand of human being. Some of the “world” texts (1 John 2:2) might also be interpreted this way. However, there might also be passages that lead to more general atonement theory (John 3:16?). This being the case, what stops us from categorizing the redemptive work of Jesus as a “both-and” type of situation?
In one sense, His cross work is for all. It is offered to all in complete sincerity by God Himself. As such, it contains enough “redemptive power” to redeem any and all who desire to partake of it by faith. The best Calvinists have maintained something close to this idea, but I also believe many of them have been governed more by logic (which is important) than a plain reading of certain “hard” passages (which is essential–these are those passages that don’t neatly fit a given system).
At any rate, Jesus’ death is genuinely offered to all and truly contains, if we can put it this way, enough “propitiatory potential” to satisfy God’s justice for any who want it. At the same time, though, His cross–while not being withheld from anyone–is particularly applied to those “sheep” He came to rescue.
Of course we now enter holy ground, and with it we encounter profound mystery. How can this be? In what sense is this fair? Does this not contradict those other passages that treat the atonement in a more general sense? All of these are good questions, and I believe they are worth pursuing. However, I also believe that a complete understanding of them is unavailable in this life. In good postmodern fashion, we are left with mystery and tension, but we are also provided a (modernistic?) model that fits all of the biblical data. This, I would suggest, is of supreme importance.
Some Calvinists, though rightly emphasizing the particularism of the atonement, have minimized the fullness and sufficiency of the cross for all. Indeed, John 3:16, that most famous of evangelistic passages, is, in the opinion of some, a general atonement passage. On the other hand, some non-Calvinists have gone in the other direction, and have accused God of unfairness and the like when it comes to His liberty to exercise His complete and just will.
As an aside, many postmoderns seem comfortable with free will, which is fine, but they don’t seem to accord to God the same privilege. Thus, they minimize God’s freedom in order to highlight man’s. Again, this is naive and imbalanced. Worse, it fails to do justice to the many passages that speak of God’s freedom. When it comes to discussing these matters, the desire to guard man’s free will (which is a good thing) often dictates the type of conclusions we allow for. Since particularism appears to limit human free agency, it is tempting to jettison God’s freedom. Two comments: (1) God is presented as King in Scripture. As a transcendent being, He calls the shots. (2) Man is free in some genuine sense, but his freedom is not absolute (and whatever it is, it is not as great as God’s). Man is free in some sense (although simultaneously bound by his fallenness and humanity). Of course the concept of freedom (intellectual and moral) is not easy to capture. Indeed, theologians and philosophers have for centuries debated its meaning. Thus, to admit free will–which is a biblical thing–is not necessarily the same thing as saying that God is bound or limited by the free choices of His creatures.
In my opinion, divine sovereignty and (a rightly nuanced) human freedom are very puzzling concepts, and neither Calvinists nor Arminians have completely solved this dilemma. This is part of the reason why I have shied away from such labels, for I question their ability to convey much that is helpful. Not only are there varieties of each type (i.e., Calvinists and Arminians), but the labels have tended to keep people from honestly and openly investigating the various pieces of the redemptive puzzle (e.g., “limited atonement”). Furthermore, they have fostered an “us vs. them” mentality among equally sincere believers. When this occurs, we are all the worse off. Let it suffice to say that I believe that Jesus’ death was both for everyone (in some true sense) and for a particular group (in some other sense). However one defines this position, it is my attempt to incorporate all of the relevant data into the discussion and to allow the whole counsel of God to have its mystery-making but worship-inducing way with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment