Definite atonement focuses on the question of the design of Christ’s atonement, that is, what is God’s intent in sending Jesus to the cross.
Unless one is a universalist I think we agree that the effect of Christ’s work on the cross is limited to those who believe. His atonement is not for the benefit of unbelievers. Clearly not everyone is saved through His death even though the merit of Christ’s death is sufficient to pay for the sins of all.
The a popular catchphrase for this; Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some.
That I think this is where most of us agree. The disagreement however is that those who deny definite atonement believe Christ’s work of atonement was designed by God to atone for the sins of everyone in the world. Salvation is made possible for everyone but not made certain for anyone. It's design is unlimited and indefinite.
On the other hand the Reformed View is that the atonement was designed and intended only for the elect. Sproul writes, "Christ laid down His life for His sheep and only for His sheep. Furthermore, the Atonement insured salvation for all the elect. The Atonement was an actual, not merely potential, work of redemption. In this view there is no possibility that God’s design and intent for the Atonement could be frustrated. God’s purpose in salvation is sure."
Many in the non-Reformed camp use 1 John 2:2 as scriptural proof against definite atonement. Care however should be taken that this does not becomes a proof-text for universalism. It is hard to use this as the non-Reformed thinker would like and not land in the camp of universalism. Again, Sproul writes, "If Christ propitiated or satisfied God’s demands for the punishment of the sins of everybody, then clearly everybody would be saved. If God punished sins that were already propitiated then He would be unjust. If the text is understood to mean that everyone’s sins have been conditionally propitiated (contingent upon faith and repentance) then we are back to the original question of only the elect satisfying the conditions."
So the Reformed View seeks another way to view this text and attention is turned to the word "our". If John is speaking only of fellow believers, then the previous interpretation of the text would apply. However the Reformer would claim that John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world. Is it proof? No. Is it plausible? I think yes. But I'm certain it is not as the non-Reformed person claims since that leads me to universalism.
Technorati Tags: Calvinism
No comments:
Post a Comment