Christ's Death: designed for all, designed for some? (part I) by Peter Lumpkins

        One of the clearest expressions in Scripture pertaining to the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice is found in the Apostle of Love’s first little letter. He writes: “He Himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only for our sins but the sins of all the world” (2:2 NLT). This post is meant not to be an exhaustive exposition of this text. Rather, my desire is to allow the Word of God to simply speak for itself through honest evaluation of the text sufficiently showing John’s basic intent that Jesus was “Savior of the world” (1John 4:14; John 4:42).  Before actually dealing with John's assertion about the Atonement, allow me to offer a few observations about Atonement according to historic Calvinism   >>>

Strict Calvinist interpreters struggle to overcome the impact of this verse as we'll see later. They concede that, at least on first reading, the text seems to suggest Christ died not only for the Elect but also for the world as well. That most people take that reading can easily be proved by looking at the myriad Calvinist rejoinders to “standard objections” toward Particular Redemption which inevitably include 1 John 2:2. Virtually no Reformed work dealing with the Atonement mentions 1 John 2:2 as anything other than a “standard objection” to Limited Atonement.

In addition, not only is 1 John 2:2’s explicit reference to the universality of God’s provision for sin the most common rendering offered by average Bible readers, but taking its face value reference to God’s full provision for sin is also the majority position of the historic church. The question is worth asking: were there any substantial faith communities in the Christian church before the Synod of Dort which embraced Limited Atonement? Or, stated another way, how prominent was Limited Atonement in Christian dogma prior to its doctrinal development in post-Calvin Calvinism?    

On the other hand, strict Calvinists routinely claim that texts like 1 John 2:2 are simply ripped out of their context by people who hate God’s Sovereignty in salvation. Furthermore, strict Calvinists insist that Limited Atonement—or, some prefer Particular Redemption--is so well founded in Scripture that it is hard to see how any could miss the clear teaching of Scripture. R.C. Sproul writes: 

One of the most controversial points of Reformed theology concerns the L in TULIP. L stands for Limited Atonement. It has been such a problem of doctrine that there are multitudes of Christians who say they embrace most of the doctrines of Calvinism but get off the boat here. They refer to themselves as “four-point” Calvinists. The point they cannot abide is limited atonement. I have often thought that to be a four-point Calvinist one must misunderstand at least one of the five points. It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could understand the other four points of Calvinism and deny limited atonement. There always is the possibility, however, of the happy inconsistency by which people hold incompatible views at the same time"¹

Does the claim for clarity stand up to historical analysis?

Let’s see.

Clement of Alexandria, a second century theologian, wrote of Christ’s sacrifice: “Christ freely brings… salvation to the whole human race” (Paedagogus, ch. 11). The great Church historian, Eusebius (260-340 AD), penned these words about the Atonement: “it was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race.” (Demonstratio Evangelica, ch. 10, preface).Gregory of Nazianzen (A.D. 324-389) said that “the sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world.” (Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover).

Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444) taught that “the death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father.” (Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7). Indeed, Millard Erickson remarks that unlimited atonement was held by virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with the possible exception of Augustine (who evidently held conflicting views on the subject).  Incidentally, while Erickson fully self-identifies as a Calvinist, he rejects Limited Atonement.

It is often assumed that with the dawn of the Reformation, Limited Atonement as a Biblical doctrine once again came to light. However, many--indeed if not most--of the Reformers did not embrace Limited Atonement. For example, hear Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1546) thunder about the sacrifice of Christ:

“Christ is not a cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world…He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world…Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world…Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world … take hold upon Christ.” (Commentary on Galatians).

Millard Erickson lists other Reformation lights who held to the universality of God’s provision in the Atonement including Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer and Coverdale. David Allen's more recent monograph in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism remains a devastating critique on Limited Atonement. Of interest in Allen's historical analysis is the discouraging reality--discouraging at least to strict Calvinists--that he only uses Calvinist sources. In other words, Calvinists rejecting Calvinism!  

And, one only needs to read Calvin’s commentaries to understand why many scholars question his unwavering belief in Limited Atonement. One comment from an endless stream in Calvin's commentaries will suffice.In his commentary on “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” the Baptist’s introduction of Jesus the Messiah (John 1:29), Calvin writes:

“He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race...”²

It’s comments like these that leave historical theologians baffled as to both what Calvin taught about Limited Atonement and why Calvinism itself developed “limitedism” in the Atonement as a non-negotiable aspect of Calvinism proper.

In my next post, we will look specifically at the text of 1 John 2.2.

With that, I am...

Peter

¹Sproul, R. C. (1996). Chosen by God. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers

²due to several reputable challenges in Calvin scholarship, it's becoming increasingly problematic to hold, without serious reservation, that John Calvin himself held to what Calvinists dub Limited Atonement 

 

Comments

[Christiane]

Peter, the Orthodox Christians believe that the answers to 'who' Christ would have the ability to save are found in the great mystery of the Incarnation.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Great information.
David R. Brumbelow

[peter lumpkins]

Christiane,

Thanks. Not sure your point, unfortunately...

David,

Glad to be of service!!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Remi]

Peter,

Good article.

Christiane,

What?

[Steve Evans]

Peter, thanks once again for hitting the nail on the head when it comes to truth. But, of course, the detractors have yet to come and share their 2 cents worth. Also, I didn't understand what Christiane was saying............

[Christiane]

Hi Peter,

My comment above referred to your post's quote, this:

"Eusebius (260-340 AD), penned these words about the Atonement: “it was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race.” "

The Orthodox of eastern Christianity celebrate the mystery of the Incarnation as a part of the whole 'Christ event' and Eusebius was not alone among the early Church Fathers in seeing the 'connection'.

If you wanted to explore the eastern Orthodox high view of the mystery of the Incarnation, you will find more references that are in agreement with the opinion of Eusebius.

[Tony Byrne]

Peter wrote:

"Of interest in Allen's historical analysis is the discouraging reality--discouraging at least to strict Calvinists--that he only uses Calvinist sources. In other words, Calvinists rejecting Calvinism!"

If I am reading this correctly in context, I assume you're saying something like this in the last sentence:

"Calvinists rejecting [what is exclusively deemed to be true] Calvinism [today by strict Calvinists]!"

Am I correct?

I don't think you're saying that Allen is arguing that the Calvinists he lists rejected Calvinism on the point (as some may misread you). Rather, so others can know, what Allen argued is that they (the Moderates) were in a distinct (yet authentically Calvinistic) trajectory than the other Owenic Calvinistic trajectory, since the moderates did not view Christ's satisfaction as limited in terms of His sin-bearing (as Owenism did). Consequently, Calvinistic men like R. L. Dabney and Charles Hodge (among others) took an unlimited reading of 1 John 2:2, though still seeing a sense of limitation or particularity in terms of Christ's decretal intent in dying. The Puritan Stephen Charnock, as an example of one in this trajectory, took an unlimited reading of John 1:29, and even referenced Amyraut's words on it in a footnote.

This is what R. C. Sproul seems unaware of. He assumes that if one believes in a Calvinistic sense of election, that necessarily entails that they view Christ's sin-bearing itself as limited. No, a real universality in terms of Christ's sin-bearing can co-exist with a real limitation in effectual intent, according to what these classical and moderate Calvnists are saying, just as universal offers, common love and God's universal saving will can co-exist with limited effectual callings and a limited decretal will to save only the elect. Sproul, like other contemporary Calvinistic teachers need to read men like Dr. Richard Muller who concedes that men like Ursinus, Bullinger, Zanchi, Musculus, Twisse, Kimedoncius, etc., held to the classical Christology that said Christ suffered for all He shares a nature with (i.e. all mankind), yet the efficacy of His death only pertains to the elect. This "middle way" has been eclipsed by the prevailing strict Calvinism today, yet scholarship is starting to come around, as can be seen in the recent book "Drawn Into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism," ed. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Vandenjoeck & Ruprect, 2011). Of particular interest in this debate are Richard Muller's historiographical introduction (pp. 11-30) and Jonathan Moore's (admittedly problematic) chapter on "The Extent of the Atonement: English Hypothetical Universalism versus Particular Redemption." See pages 124-161. Moore is the first Reformed historian in print to concede that Henry Scudder (a Westminster Divine that Dr. David Allen references in Whosoever Will, pp. 67, 73-74) taught the classical model. This information has yet to trickle down to the Calvinistic laymen. Then, hopefully, it will at least help to correct the historical record, and perhaps help to set forth a moderate alternative to the prevailing strict Calvinism of today.

[Eric Opsahl]

When Folks agree with Luther's statement: "Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world…Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world … take hold upon Christ.”

Isn't this implying that those who reject Christ and end up in Hell also have their sins forgiven?

[peter lumpkins]

Tony,

Precisely. My "Calvinists rejecting Calvinism" remark was intended as a literary 'eye-grabber' displaying a humorous paradox toward Calvinists like Sproul (and so many Baptist Calvinists) who insist true Calvinists are exclusively high Calvinists, leaving "low" Calvinists like yourself either, at best, in the Amyraldian pasture or worst in an Arminian barn! In addition, what "low" or "moderate" Calvinists reject in Calvinism (concerning Limited Atonement) is the ism--i.e. the developed logical system in second & third generation post-Calvin Calvinism--opting instead for the plain teaching of Scripture including language which emphasizes Christ died for "all", "the world", and "every man".

Thanks for your clarity on this issue Tony.

Grace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

To answer your question--No.

And, it's not just "agreeing" with Luther but virtually the entire history of the Christian church on the atonement. The strict Calvinist view of the atonement is arguably but a shade beyond a footnote in two millennium's of Christian theology. Why young Calvinists such as yourself (presumably, of you obviously) uncritically "buy into" such an innovative doctrine of the Cross remains fascinating.

Grace, my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

Eric asked:
"Isn't this implying that those who reject Christ and end up in Hell also have their sins forgiven?"

No, that no more follows from Christ's universal satisfaction than the idea that the unbelieving elect have their sins forgiven merely because Jesus died for them, unless you want to buy into the unbiblical view of justification prior to faith (all the elect forgiven at the cross), or perhaps even the justification of all the elect in eternity. One is not forgiven merely because Jesus died for one. Faith (as a vital instrumental cause) in the all-sufficient Savior results in the forgiveness of sins, i.e. justification. If you'd like to read Calvinistic arguments against the double payment argument which seems to be underneath your question, see here (click).

[Eric Opsahl]

When folks (such as Luther) say something to the effect of:
"Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world"
I would say that Christ Limits "taking away a person's sins" to those who trust in Him, thru saving faith.

I would also say that those who die in sin without faith, do not have their sins forgiven.

Is it more complicated than that.

[Tony Byrne]

Eric,

It appears that you're reading "taken away the sins" as synonymous with forgiveness, rather than Luther's sense of "to bear," as in the lamb metaphor in John 1:29. Christ has "taken away the sins of the world" in the sense that He bore the punishment due for our sins, and thus "takes them away," or bears them, like the typological scapegoat.

We agree with you that only a person who has saving faith is forgiven, but that's not how we're reading the expression "taken away the sin of the world" in Luther or in John 1:29. We also agree with you that those who die in sin without faith do not have their sins forgiven, but we're contending that Jesus did suffer sufficiently for them, as their Redeemer and penal substitute.

Grace to you,
Tony

[Eric Opsahl]

Tony,

Yes i was.

Thanks