6 point calvinist?

I finally finished listening to Mark Driscoll's EXCELLENT series entitle Christ on the Cross. I highly recommend it. Go to Mars Hill Church, downloads, sermons, and then topical series. These are really great and worth listening to the full series.

BUT - Driscoll almost fooled me with number 8 in the series, Limited/Unlimited Atonement. In that I started to think both limited and unlimited atonement was correct. I started to think that perhaps I was a 6 point Calvinist.

Here's his view:

At first glance, Unlimited and Limited Atonement are in opposition. But that dilemma is resolved by noting two things. First, the two categories are not mutually exclusive; since Jesus died for the sins of everyone that means that He also died for the sins of the elect. Second, Jesus’ death for all people does not accomplish the same thing as His death for the elect. This point is complicated, but is in fact taught in Scripture (1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1).

Simply, by dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as His possession and He then applies His forgiveness to the elect by grace and applies His wrath to the non-elect. Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone, and, subjectively, only efficient to save those who repent of their sin and trust in Him.

Good stuff and one could get caught in it. Clearly 2 Pet 2.1 indicates that Christ purchased even false prophets, "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." And 1 Tim 4.10 causes us to see that He is the Savior of more than just those that believe, "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

One of my heroes in the faith, John Piper has similar views.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."

But I think Piper has not confused, as does Driscoll, what atonement really means. Both say the right words. Christ's work on the cross benefits all mankind but for the elect, it benefits them in a special way. Driscoll calls both atonement. I don't think that is correct. Christ only atoned for the sins of the elect; atonement in the Reformed view is not applied in an unlimited fashion.

All that aside, this is really good stuff. I personally get so focused on trying to confront the Armenian "free will" issue that in hammering on that, I lose sight of the general benefit all the earth receives through Christ.

So while I cannot say as Driscoll that Christ provided both limited and unlimited atonement, I am thankful that he helped remind me of the more complete view of Christ's work on the cross.

Technorati Tags: Mark Driscoll, John Piper, atonement, Calvinism