The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Is a Universal Reference in the Atonement "Unreformed"?

toddpedlar · #14 (**permalink**) 06-14-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Can you be a little more direct? What in your view is the essence of the misrepresentation of Dort with respect to particular redemption?

Sure. Most of the early reformed tradition, and indeed Dort, did see a universal end as well as a particular end in the atonement. This is, at least, what somone like Richard Muller would seem to affirm (so here). Moreover, the school of Saumur (in Muller's eyes) fits in with Dort (so here).

This universal end (alongside of the particular end) in the atonement was affirmed to make sense of the classic universal texts (esp. 1 John 2:2).

The issue of "limited atonement" is a little more subtle than just the standard statement "Christ died for the elect".

God bless Todd.

I'm not sure it's so simple, Marty. What does "atonement" mean if it doesn't mean "redemption"?

In what sense (consistent with Dort, Westminster, etc.) can anybody claim that Jesus ATONED for the sin of any but the elect? There is no such sense, of course, since the Biblical picture of atonement is a one-for-one exchange which redeems. I can't see any consistency between Dort/Westminster and any "intent" on God's part in providing atonement/redemption for any but the elect. Those confessions (and indeed the confessional standards that are upheld in this board) are crystal clear with respect to God's intent in providing Christ as the propitiation for sin. Those who claim an intent or will of God to give Christ as exchange for non-elect (which will/intent is thwarted by the conditional response of the individual) are simply at odds with our confessional standards (and with Scripture).

Can you clarify your position?