"L" - Limited Atonement: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

In chapter 3, Olson describes limited atonement by first stating that all Calvinists accept the penal substitution theory of the atonement, namely that 

[T]hey believe... that God punished Jesus for the sins of the people God wanted to save... In other words, Jesus Christ satisfied the justice of God by bearing the deserved punishment of every person God wanted to save.  That's what makes them "savable". (pp. 47)

He then goes on to define what limited atonement means:

The limited nature of the atonement... was in its scope and not in its value. It was particularly intended by God for particular people (as opposed to everyone indiscriminately) and it definitely secured or accomplished the salvation of those for whom it was intended - the elect. (pp. 47)

and later, adds this little tidbit:

[M]ost Calvinists deny that God intended the cross for all people, which means, of course, that he does not love everyone in the same way. (pp. 48)

This part of the chapter is where Olson begins to present some material that I'm anxious to hear from Horton's (pro-Calvinist) point of view.  Olson gives a short summary of how Calvinists explain the various benefits received by the elect and non-elect, especially in light of the "all" passages in scripture.  Olson describes how Calvinists claim (as in the quote above) that God loves everybody, but not in the same way.  So Christ died for the sins of the elect, but not the sins of the reprobate.  Christ's death benefits the non-elect in a more general way, like in the rising of the sun (Matthew 5:45).  The "all" passages in scripture are said to apply to the non-elect in this more general way.


Olson puts it like this:

On the basis of what Scriptures do Calvinists affirm limited atonement? ... Boettner, Sproul, Piper and others point to passages such as John 10:15; 11:51-52; and 17:6, 9 19, in which Jesus says things such as "I lay down my life for the sheep."

Olson will rebut this more completely in chapter 6, but here he simply states that these passages, all of which indeed talk bout Jesus dying for "his people" do not necessarily exclude the possibility of Jesus dying for others.  He continues:

In fact, 1 John 2:2 clearly states that he, Jesus, is the atonement for the sins of the whole world. Piper and others claim this refers to the children of God scattered throughout the world and not everyone. (pp. 50)

I'm sure Horton will present this argument more elegantly, but to me this claim just reeks of BS. Combine this with the divine picture that emerges when God is charged with sending people to hell "for his good pleasure", and the "T" in TULIP becomes the most problematic, at least for me.

Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?

C.S. Lewis: Jesus is a false prophet?

Over the last couple days, I've been having a conversation with a reader (James) regarding whether or not Paul is a false prophet. (See the comment section of this post) The conversation has centered around Deuteronomy 18:21-22, where the writer answers the hypothetical question:

How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD? -Deuteronomy 18:21b

The writer then goes on to answer the question:

If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. -Deuteronomy 18:22a

I agreed with James that this statement could be considered universally applicable, not just to be applied to the situation being discussed in Deuteronomy 18.

Given that, the test for a false teaching can be reduced to the following:
A teaching is false IF:

1) The teacher was a prophet. AND
2) The prophet must have made predictions that did not come true.

In recent posts, I've blogged about Jesus' (Seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, as well as the possibility that Jesus may not have known when he would return. In one post, I discuss a quote by C.S. Lewis where Lewis suggests that Jesus was wrong about his own return.

The test above raises the stakes in this conversation, because if Jesus was wrong (as Lewis suggests), and if he can be considered a prophet (which is undoubtable) then the test above would suggest that Jesus is a false prophet. It seems that C.S Lewis has come dangerously close to declaring Jesus a false prophet.

Lewis called the verse containing what he called Jesus' "exhibition of error" the "most embarrassing verse in the Bible". As I've said before, it seems more appropriate to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, than about what Jesus said.

What Did Jesus Know? And Why Should I Care?

I've had a significant bout of what might be best described as "theology disillusionment" lately (similar to this experience described by Stephen over at Undeception). But a recent post by Internet Monk is relevant to my last post, so I thought I'd comment.

In my last post, I discussed Jesus' (seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, and briefly touched on the suggestion that Jesus may not have known when he would return. At the time I didn't even consider it a possibility, but after some thought have allowed it a spot next to the other possible solutions to the problem.

Anyone raising the question "What did Jesus know, and when?" is bound to receive a thousand different answers, some backed up by proof texts and others more emotionally derived. What is common in this discussion (at least among lay-Christians) is the general attitude that the subject of Jesus' knowledge (or lack of it) is interesting, but unimportant.

I'd like to suggest that the issue is more relevant than most would allow. If Jesus truly did not know when he would return, then the expectation of a future (to us) return of Christ is reasonable. But if Jesus' prediction of his own return is to be regarded as authoritative, then it seems more likely that this prophesy was fulfilled around 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (and the temple) by the Roman army.

This, in turn, is relevant because it affects how we view the future. Can we look forward to Jesus returning and fixing all the ills of the world? Or are we responsible for affecting this change ourselves? Do we go out and win as many souls as possible, or do we work to end poverty and oppression? So in the end, the answer to these questions lies, in part, in our answer to the question that is the title of this post.

In my Baptist church, both of the options above are heretical to some degree, so again I ask myself: What did I just step in?