For Whom Did Christ Die? (II)
At the time I wrote the paper that we’ll be discussing, I had read most of Robert Morey’s book on the atonement. Since then I have now finished the book and I might add it was very clear and helpful for me to better understand the atonement as well as other doctrines pertaining to salvation. While reading through it I thought a lot about Bruce Ware’s arguments for rejecting the traditional view of limited atonement or particular redemption. I thought that putting the arguments side by side would be helpful to sharpen our thinking and to solidify our confidence in a particular and definite atonement.
Ware’s arguments
(These arguments were found in a PDF file from a class that Ware posted online. I found them while researching his views on the atonement).
Best of both sides- Able to interpret all of scripture in its most obvious meaning and are able to read Arminian general salvation proof text as they are and also Calvinist election proof text plainly as well.
Multiple intentions argument- The atonement has multiple intentions and not just one. They can be seen in the following five points.
1. Limited scope and purpose- for the elect (Calvinist texts)
2. Limitless scope and purpose- for the whole world (Arminian texts)
3. Bona fide offer purpose- we can really say that Jesus died for you in evangelism because Christ died for all men.
4. Just condemnation purpose- an additional basis for condemnation because they have rejected Jesus who actually died for their sins.
5. Cosmic triumph purpose- Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to Himself. Even the sins of those in hell have been conquered and died for, however salvation is not applied to them because they do not believe.
Part to whole argument- Even though some passages say he died for His sheep they do not say that he only died for his sheep.
Necessity of saving faith argument- the whole world is under the wrath of God until a sinner professes faith in Christ. Prior to faith the elect are under wrath just as the non-elect. Therefore although Christ’s atonement is not applied until a person professes saving faith. There was a time when all believers were under God’s wrath.
Definite atonement particular redemption arguments
Efficacy argument- Christ was incarnate in order to fully and successfully save his sheep and pay for their sins, not merely to make salvation possible.
Sovereignty argument- if Christ died for all then all would be saved.
Ethical argument- how can God justly punish those whom he has died for?
Comprehensive payment argument- Christ’s death even paid for the sin of unbelief.
Intercessory office of Christ argument- Christ only intercedes for the elect. John 17
Eternal decree argument- If God chose to save some in election he cannot have differing desires that go against his decree. If he chose to save some then he cannot desire that every singe human person be saved because it would contradict his decree and it would make Him a failure because not all are saved.
Old Testament argument- sacrifice only made for specific people not all
The Lord’s Supper argument- if Christ died for all without exception then all without exception should be invited to partake of the Lords Supper which celebrates Christ’s death for them.
Election and Reprobation argument- If God has chosen a specific people unconditionally to show them mercy by dying for them, and also chose a specific people to use for his wise purposes in condemnation then it seems to make election and reprobation arbitrary if Christ died for both the elect and reprobate. Why do we feel the need to say he died for the ones whom God has intended wrath and condemnation before the foundation of the world?
The payment secures complete assurance of faith repentance and perseverance- Christ death on the cross was complete in that it secured salvation for the elect. Their faith, repentance, and sanctification were all secured on Calvary.
The Trinitarian unity in salvation argument- According to four-point Calvinists God the father chose some in election to show his mercy, and God the son died as a sacrifice for every singe human who ever existed, and God the Spirit applies salvation to only some (the elect). This would make the Father and the Spirit accomplishing the same goal and God the Son dying not for only those the father elected to show mercy but also for those whom are reprobates before the foundation of the world. This is proposing a disunity within the Trinitarian work of salvation.
-Some concluding questions
-Is it right to say that unbelievers have been crucified with Christ, buried and resurrected?
-Is it right to say that unbelievers have had God’s wrath propitiated through Christ’s death?
10 Comments, Comment or Ping
Peter Phillips
Great summary of the two positions! Look forward to reading your paper.
One more thing, how do you deal with the problem passages? Do you deal with them exegetically, logically, or systematically? Perhaps all three would be ideal. Anyhow, here are some of them:
1 John 2:1-2: My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Peter 2:1- But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction
Heb. 2:9- But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
1 Tim. 2:3-6 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man [1] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1 Tim. 4:10-10 For to this end we toil and strive, [1] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
Look forward to hearing your input on these important issues.
Dec 16th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
If anyone is interested in adding any other Biblical arguments for the extent of the atonement here would be a great place to post them. I don’t care which side of the debate you come out on just give your best explanation of a Biblical argument. If there are any arminians who wish to give some arguments for your position go right ahead and we will discuss them in order to be helpful and understand what the Bible teaches about the death of Christ. Also if there are any other modified 4 point Calvinists who think they have other arguments against the historic reformed position go ahead and post it so we can analyze it and sharpen our convictions on the topic. And of course, if you are reading this and are like myself and hold to particular redemption add some arguments that I have not already listed so that we can all be edified while we study this very important doctrine.
Dec 17th, 2008
Danny Pelichowski
Peter,
The paper I wrote was not designed to give exegetical interpretations of all of these passages (although I think this is important). I wrote the paper in May of 2007 before taking any classes with Dr. Ware. I took systematic theology 1 with him this past semester and am in his theology 2 class next semester where we will discuss the atonement at length. Lord willing I plan on writing a paper on this same topic but more specifically dealing with these texts. The paper that will be posted here is an overview of the nature of the atonement with brief discussion at the end about the extent of the atonement primarily comparing and contrasting the historic Calvinist particular redemption/limited or definite atonement position with Dr. Ware’s multiple intentions view of the atonement. I do discuss the problem passages as a whole in part 4 and 5 of the paper and specifically deal with 1 Timothy 2:4 as an example.
I think it is important for me to relay here that I have been very blessed to attend Dr. Bruce Ware’s class and have great respect for him. I have learned a lot in the class and have enjoyed reading his books (especially God’s Lesser Glory written against open theism). I think he is a great communicator and an exceptional professor even though I disagree with him in some areas like the extent of the atonement.
Dec 17th, 2008
Brandon Melton
Let me first say that I am not completely sold on my position on the atonement. Ever since I started studying it in depth about a year and a half ago I have considered myself a dogmatic 5-Pointer. In recent days, through some further exposure to the Modified Calvinist or Multiple Intentions views, I have begun to challenge my own personal thinking on the atonement and I find the Modified Calvinist view to be very intriguing.
I would like to address the “concluding questions”:
1. “Is it right to say that unbelievers have been crucified with Christ, buried and resurrected?”
Answer: I assume that what you mean by unbelievers is “non-elect”. My answer is absolutely not. But I would add this: It is equally wrong to say that elect unbelievers have been crucified, buried, and resurrected with Christ. Before regeneration and conversion, even elect unbelievers stand under the just condemnation of God since they are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3).
2. “Is it right to say that unbelievers have had God’s wrath propitiated through Christ’s death?”
Answer: Again, it is my assumption that by unbelievers you mean “non-elect”. Again, my answer is no. But again, I would draw a comparison to elect unbelievers who, before regeneration and conversion, stand under God’s wrath as well (Ephesians 2:3). We all would agree that every elect person has God’s wrath against their sin propitiated. How than can an unconverted elect person stand under God’s wrath if that very wrath was propitiated by Christ on the cross?
I would submit that it was not. Scripture is clear that on the cross Jesus Christ became our propitiation, but “propitiation” is a noun. It describes who Jesus is, not what He did on the cross. I would submit that the actual propitiation and substitution happens not at the historical moment of the cross, but instead at the moment of regeneration and conversion. After all, Justification is by faith, and faith is a gift granted by God. Therefore, Christ did not necessarily have to only bear the sins of the elect in order to be an effectual propitiation for them. God’s wrath is not propitiated until the work of the Propitiation (Jesus Christ) is appropriated by God given faith.
By His Grace – For His Glory
Brandon Melton
Mar 16th, 2009
Danny Pelichowski
Brandon,
Thanks for your questions. I hope that our discussion can be helpful. From what I gather this is one of Ware’s more emphasized points when dealing with his view of the atonement. This line of reasoning is aimed at dealing with John Owen’s argument that if Christ died for all men past, present, and future then all men should be saved. Let me highlight once more this point of Dr. Ware’s view that can be seen in the above article.
Necessity of saving faith argument- the whole world is under the wrath of God until a sinner professes faith in Christ. Prior to faith the elect are under wrath just as the non-elect. Therefore, Christ’s atonement is not applied until a person professes saving faith. There was a time when all believers were under God’s wrath. Eph 2:3 “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
I grant that we were at one time under God’s wrath prior to our regeneration, faith, and justification. I agree that the application of redemption happens when a sinners repents and believes the Gospel. The work that was accomplished and completely finished on the sinner’s behalf is applied to them in time and history upon their conversion. I don’t think any 5 point Calvinist would deny this point which is why I don’t find Dr. Ware’s argument very convincing. Theologians who believe in a definite atonement hold to a different view of the nature of the atonement (particular, definite, limited, specific etc.) which would make a general atonement impossible unless universalism was accepted (the theory that all men everywhere will go to heaven and no person will suffer in hell). I know that Ware clearly rejects universalism and it sounds like you are with him and us on that point.
I wrote this paper having only read part of Dr. Robert Morey’s book on the atonement. After completing this paper I finished the book and found some very foundational discussion specifically dealing with the objective/subjective aspects of union with Christ and the application of the atonement that applies to Dr. Ware’s necessity of saving faith argument. I look forward to discussing this with Dr. Ware and asking him what he thinks about this theological distinction of the atonement this semester. Is there a sense in his (or yours) theology where he views the elect as being objectively in Christ prior to conversion in view of Christ death for them on the cross? Morey’s discussion about the objective/subjective ways a person can be in Christ prior to faith is very clear and Biblical. Professor Ware’s argues that even the elect were at one time under God’s wrath just like the reprobate would not be a valid proof for his view of a universal general atonement if there is in fact a clear distinction made in the Bible that the elect are in Christ prior to their subjective faith in history. Here are some Scriptural passages below that prove that there are blessings in Christ to the elect before the foundation of the world as well as at the time of atonement 2000 years ago.
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
2Ti 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I will include some quotes below from Dr. Morey’s book Studies in the Atonement to bring further clarity about the application of the atonement and the glorious doctrine of union with Christ. (These pages refer to the 1989 printing of the book. If you have the older 1980 or more recently printed 2007 book refer to chapter 9 entitled Union with Christ).
“Reformed theology stresses the fact that salvation is of the Lord 100%. God planned it. God accomplished it and applies it. Non-reformed systems stress that man must appropriate salvation. God offers it but man is the one who will decide whether or not salvation takes place.” P.77
“By the virtue of Christ’s substitutionary and representative work, the elect were ‘in Christ’ when he died and was raised from the dead.” P. 92
“The work of Christ has direct bearing on our salvation essentially because of our union with His person. If we were not viewed as being in union with Christ when He lived and died, then His life and death could never save us.” P. 92
“When we speak of our objective union with Christ we are referring to our being ‘in Christ’ in eternity and ‘in Christ’ when he accomplished redemption in history. We are ‘His’ and ‘in him’ in the eternal decree of salvation and during the life and death of Christ.” P.95
“But in subjective union with Christ, He becomes ‘ours’ and Christ is ‘in us’ when the Holy Spirit begins the process of the application of redemption. We also enter into a new and living relationship to Christ in which we are ‘in Christ’ in a new way.” P.95
“While the elect sinner is ‘in Christ’ objectively from eternity, Christ is not ‘in Him’ subjectively until personal salvation. Thus the unregenerate elect sinner is both ‘in’ and ‘out’ of Christ at the same time!” P.95
“In eternity past, the Father made a will respecting those who were viewed as being ‘in Christ.’ He elected them unto salvation. They were ‘in Christ’ so far as God’s plan was concerned though they did not yet exist.” P. 95
“In history the Son came as a mediator of the Fathers will or covenant. He accomplished redemption for those mentioned in God’s plan. These elect sinners were ‘in Christ’ when He lived and died.” P. 96
“When the fullness of time comes for each elect sinner, the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son to give him all the assets of salvation which Christ accomplished according to the will of God. Thus the sinner is initially viewed as being objectively in Christ and subjectively or personally without Christ. Only by personal salvation can a sinner say “I am His and He is mine.” P. 96
“Our subjective union with Christ involves the application of redemption while objective union concerns the plan and accomplishment of redemption.” P. 99
“Our faith is a gift of God given to those objectively in Christ. Indeed, every aspect of salvation flows out of union with Christ.” P. 101
So the following questions must be pressed again in light of this above discussion:
In view of the 4 point Calvinists universal or general atonement is it Biblical to view the non-elect as being in Christ objectively though not being elected unto salvation or even having the application of salvation applied to them? I would submit that they were never in Christ to begin with because Christ did not die for them!
The popular Calvinist saying would have to be modified for the modified 4 point Calvinist as follows: The Father elected some, the Son died for all, and the Spirit applied the atonement to some. Is this not disunity in the Godhead?
Mar 17th, 2009
Brandon Melton
I agree with you 100%. I am definitely a full on 5 point Calvinist. I was simply addressing you questions from the 4 point perspective. I think the most important issue in the whole discussion of the atonement is Christ’s role as intercessor. He intercedes on behalf of all of those for whom he died. The high priestly role of sacrifice/intercession cannot be separated. Hebrews 9 makes that case pretty convincingly. Jesus dies for all whom the Father has given him, and he intercedes on behalf of ALL of those for whom he died. In order to say that Christ died for all, you must do one of two things:
1. One must separate Christ’s inseparable work of sacrifice/intercession.
2. One must say that the intercession of Christ fails for those who perish.
I think Scripture makes it very clear that neither of these options are biblical.
In case your interested, here’s my full post on the Atonement:
http://vesselsofmercy.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/the-doctrines-of-grace-part-4-of-5-actual-atonement/
By His Grace – For His Glory
Brandon
Mar 31st, 2009
Brandon Melton
By the way,
For anyone interested I have addressed many of the problem passages that Peter suggested in regard to Definite Atonement in that article posted above.
By His Grace – For His Glory
Brandon
Mar 31st, 2009
Danny Pelichowski
Brandon,
Thanks for moving the discussion forward by your questions. I just wrote a paper for Bruce Ware’s systematic theology 2 class last week on the atonement. So it was providentially helpful responding to your questions because part of my paper was dealing with Ware’s necessity of saving faith argument.
Another question that needs to be hashed out when dealing with the extent of the atonement is if the work of Christ was efficacious. Ware and all other 4 pointers say no because if they say yes they would have to hold to universalism and this is not where they want to go. Ware would say that the application of the atonement to the elect is 100% efficacious just like the 5 pointers but does not say the same about the atonement. If it can be demonstrated that the Bible teaches (which I think it does) an efficacious payment that secures the whole application of salvation for all of those whom it was made then the 4 pointers are refuted.
I will check out your blog man, take care.
Mar 31st, 2009
Brandon Melton
I believe the book of Hebrews contains such passages:
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV)
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14 ESV)
By His Grace – For His Glory
Brandon
Apr 1st, 2009
Brandon Melton
Here’s a link that might be interesting:
http://mrc.christianity.com/players/?sc=mrki&tg=5480aadf-98b5-4171-9b3f-2d808e0a106a&pf=audio&custom=1
The first 22 minutes is a conversation between John Piper and Bruce Ware concerning Particular Redemption.
By His Grace – For His Glory
Brandon
Apr 1st, 2009
Reply to “For Whom Did Christ Die? (II)”