atonement unlimited/redemption limited quote?

[thistle93]

Hi! I am just curious to hear peoples thoughts on the following quote from William Shedd from his Dogmatic Theology.

Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term redemption, consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of "atonement," and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the scriptural texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement and limited redemption cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application.

Seems Shedd is trying to make the "sufficient/offer for all but intended/efficient for the elect" argument. Do you agree this is his point? If so I agree with him. This just seems like an odd way to say it. Is this just a case of weird semantics or would Shedd fall into Amyraldism? When I take in to consideration the rest of what Shedd says on the atonement in his Theology text, I would say it is safe to say he believed in what would be referred to as limited/definite atonement. I have heard a few other authors who I believe to be 5 point Calvinists differentiate atonement as unlimited and redemption as limited. I do not find this terminology helpful. I think the sufficient/offer for all but intended/efficient for the elect is much better. Please let me know thoughts on Shedd quote. Thank you!

Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[Herald]

Not knowing the greater context of the quote "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption limited" makes sense if one views the atonement being efficacious for all of the elect. It is unlimited in its power to those whom it is intended (i.e. the elect). Redemption is limited in that it is also intended only for the elect.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I've heard it put other similar ways, such as "The atonement was sufficient for all, but not efficient for all." While it is certainly true that the sacrifice of Christ is theoretically sufficient for all, we must acknowledge that the atonement was none the less limited otherwise we would have to confess universalism. Even if we reject election and predestination, we must confess that God has divine foreknowledge and thus he knew who would and would not be saved, and so the death of Christ could only be for those people whom God knew would be saved beforehand.

 

[MW]

Shedd's statement is self-contradictory, and opens him up to being misunderstood in two ways. First, atonement is often used as a synonym for a specific part of redemption accomplished. See John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied, and the location of his treatment of the atonement. So "atonement" is a subset of the broader term, "redemption." The death of Christ touches on the broader category of "redemption" at the very point "atonement" is discussed. In other words, the two terms are speaking about the same thing when the death of Christ is the subject. It is simply double-speak to make two contradictory statements about the same thing. Secondly, reformed theologians only admit an internal sufficiency in the atonement. This means that Christ's death was infinite in value in and of itself without respect to the specific objects who would benefit from it. The point of the statement is merely to show that Christ has done all that is necessary for the salvation of men as men, and nothing more is needed in order to save any man. The efficacy of the atonement relates to the specific objects and beneficiaries. It is impossible to speak of the atonement being unlimited as to the objects who are its intended beneficiaries because all the sins of all men were not atoned for.