I like to think that I am still just a Biblicist. I doubt most would agree with that
.
Monday, May 21, 2012
I have never believed in 'Limited Atonement'
I was born into a Conservative Baptist pastor’s home. I became a
Christian in a home where your basic baptistic soteriology was taught,
you know Biblicist. In regards
to the atonement this meant that when the Bible said: “For God so loved
the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes
in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life;” and that that is
what it meant. That God loved the world (meaning the whole world), that
He gave His Son to die for the world; or a “universal atonement.” At the
same time I grew up believing that entrance into the salvation that
Jesus won for us, was exclusive and limited to those who believe in Him
(based on passages like Jn. 1:12; 14:6; etc.). So, without any kind of
supporting theology in place; we held these realities in tension, you
know, in Biblicist form.
So, should it be any surprise that when I came across Barth and TF
Torrance that their theology resonated with me in regards to providing a
theo-logic that actually fit with the Biblicism that I grew up
with, and was so familiar with. Ironically, I have come to hold to a
kind of “limited atonement;” but a kind that sees the atonement limited
to Christ, not particular people. That Christ is both elect and
reprobate in Himself for us, and by virtue of union with Him all
of humanity has the possibility to believe in Him by the power of His
name. Of course the darkness and love of sin, the god of this age and
the prince of the power of the air poses problems for some (many, the
broadway).
I like to think that I am still just a Biblicist. I doubt most would agree with that .
I like to think that I am still just a Biblicist. I doubt most would agree with that
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bobby, this resonates pretty significantly with how I've reacted to presentations of TULIP-style Calvinism. I've always felt that, for proponents of that system, it's really not meaningful to say that Christ died for "all." In which case the numerous texts which say something to that effect must be minimized, twisted, or basically ignored. In terms of who salvation is for, there are "all texts" and "some texts." You inevitably end up interpreting one set through the other; but you cannot be faithful to Scripture while ignoring one whole set. Seems to me that TULIP Calvinism doesn't have much of anything significant to say about the "all" statements.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless.
@Mark,
DeleteI agree :-).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStefan,
DeleteYour comment still came through to my phone via email. The vicarious humanity of Christ for us reframes the whole TULIP; such that it 'could' take on a new orientation in personalist terms if we see that framed and applied to Jesus' humanity for us. Thus undercutting the usual attendant dualist understanding that is present in the theology that gives rise to something like the TULIP. But I reject the TULIP, really, because of the Federal Theology behind it.
"...that Christ is both elect and reprobate in Himself for us...."
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm....never looked at it like that. Food for thought. Good post
@Gojira,
DeleteThen I'm wondering how long you actually have been reading me then ;-); since this topic is a frequent theme for me. This is what Evangelical Calvinism advocates: a 'Christ-conditioned Supralapsarian' view of election; wherein Christ elects our humanity, and in so doing takes our reprobation for himself, and in his vicarious humanity he puts human reprobation to death, in his humanity for us, and then in this reversal, in the resurrection gives us his elect status as the firstborn from the dead in his recreated resurrected humanity (cf. II Cor 8.9; Rom 6; Col 1:15ff etc).
Thanks for the explination! I pretty much got the gist of it though. Yep it is a common theme you write about; I just never really thought about it in quite those same words. It makes sense though; plus it has teeth that bite. I like it. I like it a lot!
ReplyDeleteGojira,
DeleteGlad it clicked more then this time :-)!
Bobby:
ReplyDeleteI was going to rewrite and repost my comment, then didn't get around to it. So here's the original comment, somewhat out of order:
Bobby, you know that of course, "'All' doesn't really mean 'all.'" ...Unless it's an absolute that we're emphatic about, like, say, total depravity. Then "all" really does mean "all."
I used adhere to the "L" in tulip (even though my own senior pastor does not), being persuaded that all five points must adhere together...but of all the five points of TULIP, "L" is by far the weakest and least...er...biblical.
The other four are arguable from Scripture, but the "L" can only be sustained it by logical deduction from the other points, and requires redefining texts to say something other than what they say. You can't take Romans 5:18-19, for example, and argue that one the one hand it teaches total depravity, while on the other it teaches limited atonement.
The wondrous thing is that God is in no way any less sovereign if atonement is...er, limitedly unlimited...than if it is strictly limited. Salvation is still entirely of the Lord.
Stefan,
DeleteThank you for posting this; I was glad to see your comment, so I wanted to respond either way (if it showed up or not ... thanks for reposting it) :-).