Re-posted from Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries:<\/p>\n
“If logic were my authority, my belief in the other four points of Calvinism would compel me to believe in limited atonement. However, because Scripture is my authority, I find myself unable to get around what seems to be the clear meaning of 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 and Isaiah 53:6 (I could also throw in John 1:29, John 3:16, and Hebrews 2:9). These passages seem to be sweeping in their inclusion of all men under the work of Christ. If it came down to just one passage, maybe I\u2019d think it didn\u2019t mean what it appeared to, but there are too many passages to explain away, and some of them are too clear.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers who bring swift destruction on themselves, and describes them as \u201cdenying the sovereign Lord who bought them.\u201d Either Christ died for all men, including those who aren\u2019t elect, or the false teachers who bring destruction on themselves are elect. I just don\u2019t know how else to interpret this passage.<\/p>\n
Whenever I hear these passages interpreted by those who advocate limited atonement, I have the distinct sense that rather than accepting what the passages are saying, they are trying to make them say something else which is foreign to the intent of the author and the natural understanding of the words and contexts. The passages that say Christ died for his sheep and his bride do not nullify this, for they don\u2019t say he only died for his sheep and his bride. (Logically, it may make no sense to us for him to die for goats, and for those who won\u2019t become his bride, but again, my logic is not the point. Scripture teaches many things that do not fit together with the western airtight consistency we try to demand of them.)<\/p>\n
Whether we like it or not, there seem to be two components in salvation, first Christ\u2019s provision of the gift and second our acceptance of the gift. Regardless of our profound failure to understand how those work, and what we may believe about the extent of free will or how He empowers us to choose salvation, Scripture itself does not demand that Christ\u2019s death to offer us a gift automatically saves us, only that it offers us salvation that we may or may not accept. \u201cWhosoever will may come\u201d\u2014well, if Christ didn\u2019t die for him, can he come or not? (Of course, I believe that due to depravity and election and grace, we cannot accept it on our own, but only through a drawing, convicting, supernatural work of the Spirit.)<\/p>\n
In my mind, the belief that Christ died for all, even for those who do not accept him, is not Arminianism, but a moderate viewpoint that is still distinctively Calvinistic. This is what I mean when I say I\u2019m a four pointer. If someone says \u201cthen you\u2019re really a closet Arminian, but you just won\u2019t admit it\u201d I disagree, but the bottom line is, my goal is not to be a Calvinist nor is it to avoid ever being accused of being an Arminian. My goal is to be biblical. It\u2019s just that my understanding for the most part\u2014but not entirely\u2014lines up with Calvinism far more than Arminianism. That some Calvinists (\u201c5 points or no points\u201d logicians) would not be happy with my conclusion on limited atonement is not of primary concern to me. Some Calvinists say, on a logical basis but in my opinion not a biblical one, that to disbelieve in limited atonement is to be a universalist, a Pelagian, etc.<\/p>\n
Some defend the 5 points, admitting 1 John 2:2 seems on the surface to demolish limited atonement, saying explicitly that Christ is the propitiation of the sins for the \u2018whole world.\u2019 Some think the ‘whole world’ is set in contrast with \u2018our.\u2019 What does \u2018our\u2019 mean here and what does \u2018whole world\u2019 mean here?<\/p>\n
I am not so sure the meaning of \u201cour\u201d and \u201cwhole world\u201d is really so debatable. I ask myself, if John wanted to affirm that Christ died for the whole world, including those who would be saved and unsaved, what more would I expect him to say to convince me than he says in this passage? I still believe that the passage actually says exactly what it appears to say \u201con the surface.\u201d Sometimes our attempts to get beneath the surface, to depart from the obvious meaning, are motivated by trying to squeeze Scripture into the mold of our minds, rather than our minds into the mold of Scripture.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m willing to be labeled if that is the result of sticking with what the text says. (Interestingly there are other passages such as Isaiah 53:6 or 1 Timothy 2:6 or 2 Peter 2:1 that also seem to clearly teach that Christ died for all.)<\/p>\n
In John MacArthur\u2019s Study Bible<\/i>, commenting on 1 John 2:2 he says, \u201cMost of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ.\u201d However, he doesn\u2019t cite a single passage to back up this argument. It seems to be based purely on logic. (But on the day of atonement didn\u2019t the high priest offer sacrifice for the sins of all the people, including sinners who did not end up repenting?) Dr. MacArthur says nothing to persuade me that 2 Peter 2:1 doesn\u2019t mean what it appears to.<\/p>\n
Wayne Grudem, whose systematic theology I deeply appreciate and with whom I usually agree, says of 2 Peter 2:1’s \u201cdenying the sovereign Lord who bought them\u201d:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe text means not that Christ had redeemed these false prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish people (or church attenders in the same position as the rebellious Jews) who were rightly owned by God because they had been brought out of the land of Egypt.\u201d<\/p>\n
But I just don\u2019t see that in the text or the context. If someone did not already believe in limited atonement, I don\u2019t see how they could conclude that this text wasn\u2019t saying Christ died for these false teachers he is said to have \u201cbought.\u201d It seems to me to say that though they are obviously not going to heaven, Christ died for them.<\/p>\n
One theologian says, \u201cIf the doctrine of Particular Redemption is denied, salvation then rests ultimately upon the work of the man, and not upon the work of Christ. If Christ did the same work for men who perish in hell as He did for men who are brought to heaven, salvation then must rest upon a second merit and not upon the merit of Christ.\u201d I follow the logic\u2014I just don\u2019t see the Scriptural evidence for it. And I am not going to reject what Scripture appears to teach on the basis that it could lead me to believe something else that is unscriptural. No, I will choose not to believe that other thing\u2014whether it is works-righteousness or universalism or anything else\u2014on the basis of what Scripture says about that thing.<\/p>\n
I understand the logic of 5 point theologians. Indeed if I had to base it all on logic and ignore those pesky \u201cChrist died for all\u201d passages, I would reach their same conclusion. But neither their logic nor mine should be my authority. Whenever we reduce our theology to what we can readily grasp we exalt ourselves and lower God. And, frankly, for some people I think a lot of it is men-pleasing\u2014we want to be popular with those in our theological circles who insist that if we believe one thing then we must believe another. (Who wants to be excluded from the club?)<\/p>\n
Some Calvinists defend limited atonement on a logical basis. Their case gets noticeably weaker when they cite Scripture (or rather, cites some Scriptures while neglecting others). I believe that most theologians who affirm particular atonement do not base it on the clear indications of Scripture, but deduce it from other teachings of Scripture. If our logic was authoritative, this would work. But if I was depending on logic, I would not believe the doctrine of the trinity, because it does not fit inside of our small minds. Nonetheless, the fact that we can\u2019t figure it out, that it does not stand up to our logic, doesn\u2019t make it any less true. The fact that I can\u2019t figure out how Christ could die for all people if not all people will be saved (and clearly they won\u2019t) may not make sense to me. But I believe it doesn\u2019t have to make sense to me or anyone else in order to be true. It comes down to the fact that, to paraphrase my old Greek professor Ed Goodrick, I\u2019d rather be comfortable with what my Bible actually says and uncomfortable with the logic of my systematic theology than vice-versa.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Re-posted from Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries: “If logic were my authority, my belief in the other four points of Calvinism would compel me to believe in limited atonement. However, because Scripture is my authority, I find myself unable to get around what seems to be the clear meaning of 1 John 2:2 and 1 … <\/p>\n