I've been reading a number of discussions on The Highway about atonement, especially in regards to some of Piper's statements. I am in agreement with the sufficiency/efficiency qualification made by many reformed writers. I have no problem saying that Christ died for everyone sufficiently. This in no way denies vicarious substitutionary atonement. I'd like to attempt to briefly reconcile Christ's death being for all with the doctrine of limited atonement.
Well, I was anticipating that you would bring this subject up.
It is consistent with your view of a universal love of God. And on this subject I am even more adamant in my opposition of it both on biblical grounds and according to all the historic Reformed confessions and catechisms. The position you have unfortunately chosen to embrace is "inconsistent or moderate" Calvinism, which admittedly some have espoused but who have been strongly opposed and soundly refuted. Just to start things off, I am going to quote from both the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dordt:
WCF III:6, "VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (emphasis mine)
WCF VIII:5, "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him."
WCF VIII:8, "To all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, He does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same;[39] making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by His word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation."
Canons of Dordt, Second Head of Doctrine, Article 8, "For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever."
1. To my knowledge, the scriptures never state anywhere that Christ did not die for anyone.
This is hardly a 'proof' that Christ's death was discriminate/particular only. However, without supplying a litany of proof texts, which I am more than willing to do, let me offer just the following which is indicative of what Scripture teaches concerning Christ's atonement:
John 10:11 (ASV) "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep."
John 10:15 (ASV) "even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep."
John 10:26 (ASV) "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."
2. I think that the word "atonement" is often used as a synonym with Christ's sufferings, particularly His death. However, when we consider that "atonement" means "covering" or "at-one-ment," the word has more to do with the application of Christ's merits than the death itself. In other words, it has more to do with justification than the sacrifice. Stated another way, we are covered in Christ's shed blood not at the point of sacrifice but at the point of faith, hence the reformed doctrine of "justification by faith alone." Before this point we were children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) i.e. those who are not covered by the atoning blood of Christ and therefore subject to wrath. In stating that Christ's sacrifice is the atonement and arguing the extent of the atonement based on the extent of the sacrifice seems to logically run into the doctrine of eternal justification when we consider the definition of the word.
The definition of the word "atonement" cannot be ascertained simply etymologically, although this cannot be ignored. In Hebrew, there are fundamentally 2 words used; kaphar and chaTa', both of which have the following meanings, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i. e. by some conduct, or course of action. Thus it is obvious that the Old Testament usage of the term designates an action done to accomplish an end, i.e., the death of Christ is most certainly signified.
In the New Testament, the actual word "atonement" is most often translated "reconciliation". But that is, in and of itself, but one aspect of what atonement means. There are found words used throughout the NT to describe atonement; sacrifice, reconciliation, ransom/redemption and propitiation. These four words comprise the complexity of what Christ's passive obedience accomplished.
There has been sufficient proof over the years and even lately to show that Calvin held to an definite, limited, discriminatory atonement which is consistent with the doctrine upheld by the other Reformers, Puritans and Confessions which is contrary to all forms of inconsistent Universalism. I could provide sources for you if needed which are far too lengthy to include here.
Heidelberg Catechism:
"37. What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."
Ah yes.... there is this particular Lord's Day Q&A, to which I must take exception. The 'value' of Christ's death was infinite in value, i.e., not one more drop of blood would have to been shed if the elect of God were increased by only one more person. However, that does not equate with your view that Christ laid down His life for "all" indiscriminately, i.e., He actually made atonement for "all" without exception. For indeed, if that were true then all MUST be saved, for the Father was fully satisfied with the sacrifice offered by His Son and ALL of the debt owed for whom He died was paid in full, and the wrath of God which was upon them was fully appeased via the removal of that which caused the offense (propitiation); sin, etc.
My purpose in writing this is not to start a debate, but rather to briefly describe what is a prominent position in reformed theology so that those who believe that Christ in a very real sense died for all indiscriminately are not classified as Arminians or Amyraldians. Shedd does a good job summarizing both positions:...
It may not have been your intent to start a debate, but surely you could not have imagined it would not have done so.
And, I would definitely challenge your statement that this modified/inconsistent Calvinist position is "a prominent position in Reformed theology".
It has always been a minority and unpopular position throughout history. It was held by but 3 or 4 men at the Westminster Assembly and soundly opposed and rejected. And it is most surely a form of Amyraldianism, despite your protest(s) to the contrary.
Owen's most well known summary is most fitting to end my response which you can find here:
For Whom Did Christ Die?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
