I’ve been reading this week about Soteriology...which is basically doctrine of salvation and has to do with atonement, justification, sanctification, propitiation etc...
I generally studied all these at college but it has been good to revisit them in more depth and time than I did before...What has caught my eye so far has been atonement...
A quick def of Atonement is the bringing of people back into a relationship with God. Literally it means At-one-ment...
In particular limited and unlimited atonement...I have decided that I lean more to the unlimited atonement camp...let me explain what it’s all about from my reading so far.
Limited atonement – suggests that the atonement of Christ is limited to a definite or particular number of people.
There are some interesting arguments for this...
1) As the good shepherd Christ died for the flock, not everyone is included in the flock (john 10:15)
2) Christ died for the church (Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25)
3) Christ died for the elect (Rom 8:32-33)
‘This would seem to indicate that Gods love is particular and not shown to all’...they back this theory up by referencing Rom 1:7, 8:29, 9:13, Col 3:12, 1 Thes 1:4, 2 Thes 2:13.
They also argue that if not everyone is saved whom Christ died/atoned for then the act is weakened.
But their biggest argument in favour of limited atonement (as far as I have read) is as follows and I’m going to quote this bit cos it’s hard to paraphrase...
‘If God is sovereign (Eph 1:11), then His plan cannot be frustrated, but if Christ died for all people and all people are not saved, then God’s plan IS frustrated. If Christ died for all people, then redemption has been made for all and all are justified.’
So if I’m getting this right the people who sit in this camp believe that Christ died for only the ‘elect’ of God because Christs act is weakened if not everyone believes. Therefore if Gods plan doesn’t come to be then that’s making God somehow imperfect cos something He did didn’t workout???
Unlimited Atonement – Christ died for everyone but His death but is effective only in those who believe the gospel.
Arguments for ...(I am for the most part quoting again here)
1) If the statements of the NT are taken at face value then it is evident they teach Christ died for everyone.
2) Limited atonement is not based on exegesis of the scripture but more on the logical premise that if Christ died for everyone and everyone is not saved then Gods plan is thwarted.
3) The world, as John describes it, is God hating, Christ rejecting and Satan dominated. Yet that is the world for which Christ died (John 1:29, 3:16, 17, 4:42, 1 John 4:14) these passages emphasize universal atonement.
4) The word ‘whosoever’ is used more than 110 times in the NT and ALWAYS with an unrestricted meaning (John 3:16, Acts 2:21, 10:43, Rom 10:13, Rev 22:17)
5) The word ‘all’ is an equivalent term used to denote everyone. Christ died for the ungodly – everyone is ungodly...Christ died for all i.e. everyone (2 Cor 5:14-15, 1 Tim 2:6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, Heb 2:9, 2 Pete 3:9)
6) The bible teaches that Christ died for sinners. The word ‘sinners’ nowhere means ‘church’ or ‘elect’, but simply all of lost mankind.
Personally I don’t see the point of limited atonement even in the very limited argument I have put out in this blog (sry I know this is a long one) Yes I know that Israel were the elect of God...He had to choose a nation to use and He chose them...I know that God has chosen people to work in and through down the ages...I guess I see this as another topic/issue altogether from atonement...Christ died for all of mankind for all time, in my opinion the biblical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that. This may just be my compassionate side but I honestly don’t think God would willingly condemn any of His beloved creation to hell (He’s not up there choosing who gets saved and who doesn’t...His desire is that all be saved as is evidenced through the whole of the bible as He has been seeking to draw people back to Him, culminating in the death of Jesus as the act of atonement to the whole of humanity and now it’s up to the individual to make the choice).
I also think that putting all this back on God and saying that if Christ died for all and all aren’t saved then Gods plan is thwarted is shirking the responsibility of each individual when it comes to their own salvation. To believe is a choice...its God granted cos He loved us so much He gave us free will to choose Him or not...Gods plan of atonement is perfect and righteous and satisfies every part of His holiness. It is then up to us whether or not we accept it...
Welcome to my random reflections!
The wise hand opens slowly
To lilies of the valley and tomorrow
To lilies of the valley and tomorrow
About Me
- Becs
- Im a Chaplain...and its the best job ever!!! Im lovin hanging out with my friends from church and enjoying life as it comes :) mail me: acceberitsme@hotmail.com
10 comments:
Interesting blog becster.
I haven't really ever heard anything on limited atonement before. I knew it existed but I've never investigated. So from my limited and naive understanding of what you've described it seems like flawed logic.
I understand that if Christ died for all, and all wont be saved, then God's plan isn't perfect. But if you are going to say that you have to take a step back and assume God isn't perfect anyways. In the beginning He created people and satan, and look what's happened. Hardly perfect creations. He should have just done a better job with creation. So as far as I can tell the limited atonement bunch are using poor logic. As you've said their assumptions also seem to underplay the importance of our responsibility.
Unlimited atonement theory (correct me if I'm wrong), accepts that humans were created with the responsibility of free will, to choose to do right/wrong etc, and this includes the "responsibility" to accept God and Jesus. In this way while the result of Gods creation isn't perfect, there is a logical explaination why this is so. This also explains why he died for all and left us with the responsibility to choose.
It also seems to me that belief in unlimited atonement lacks grace and it lacks a "bigger than us" God. It's a God who has to be perfect. Not the sort of God who comes to Earth as one of us to suffer and die at the hands of his chosen people to demonstrate his love.
hey pete, thanks for the comment...what do u mean by ur last paragraph? maybe its cos i spent the day playing sport and am tired as but im not getting it...
From my viewpoint it seems that limited atonement is based on the idea that God must be perfect or right. However, that is from our point of view.
Being perfect isn't God's purpose or what he is about. It seems a little "small" and ungracious to me to imply that God has got to be right so he wont let us spoil the perfectness of his plan by allowing us to decide or have any responsibility.
Seems like the explaination for a "smaller than us" God who isn't that gracious to me.
Now as said my view is probably a little simplistic and naive RE limited atonement.
Feel free to correct ;).
Interesting points made, as always. Perhaps you should right a book... "the gospel according to Bec" possibly, although you wouldn't add the bit that Vili would add, haha. Unless of course you went fully heritical and then it would be relevant!
Anyways, I think that the issue of atonement that you've raised has a lot to do with election and free will. A person's understanding of those two points will influence their understanding of atonement. Does that make sense?
(i was gonna comment on what"dodgey" pete wrote :P but i'm too tired and it more than likely won't come out right, so i'll do that another time, althoug i do think the names great!)
::tan::
YAY Go Tan...lol...he is a bit dodgy but for the most part he’s ok ;) it’s like having Lenny and Lyndon and KJ all in the same person hehe!!!
I will write a book one day...not sure on what yet or maybe it will be a multi chaptered book on many subjects.
HAHA!!! I think I did mention one day what Vili said I cant remember (thats not unusual that I can’t remember lol)...I might tell them tonight and see how they react...lol!!! and anything I write won’t be to heretical...well you’d hope not but then again it’s me ;)
I think that would have had to be the funniest thing he has ever come out with!!
::tan::
yea...speaking of vili where in the world is he??? talk about a man of mystery...no one knows!!! i think i will try facebookin him again but he never goes on there...and how can i lead the calvery if i cant/dont know how to ride a horse...???
riding a horse isn't too hard, all you gotta do is hold tight and pray that you stay on... although if you are leading the army of unbelievers, you won't really be praying will you :P
as for vili, i'm not quite sure. i haven't heard from him for ages. perhaps you should try lyndon, he might know?
i tried texting lyndon last week (he was getting good at texting) but he has dropped of the face of the earth too...maybe i will see what ruth knows...
hehe!!! no i wouldnt be praying if i was leading the unbelievers...and no one here got it...maybe i didnt lead up to the story right or it was one of those u had to be there things...
mmm, quite possibly you had to be there... or perhaps we just have a *cough* superior intelligence... hahah!
He was getting pretty good at texting. maybe he lost his phone or something?
Post a Comment