Limited vs. Universal Atonement

[J. Dean]

The article below was written by Jordan Cooper, a former Calvinist turned Lutheran, dealing with Limited vs. Universal Atonement.

Responding to Calvinist Arguments Against Universal Atonement

Have any of you dealt with this issue, and if so, how have you responded?

 

[Hilasmos]

I didn't think anything he presented was unique. Secondly, a million things could be said because it was a very brief sketch over a wide array of texts. Take just 1 John 2:2 for example. His entire critique was based on this Calvinistic argument:

1. The word "world" has different meanings in Greek
2. John is writing to Jews
3. Therefore, it makes sense to say the word world means Gentiles in contrast to the Jews ("Us")

His counter argument is that John is not necessarily writing to Jews, and that it is later in the century so the Jew/Gentile salvation distinction is old news by now. Thus, there is no reason to think "world" doesn't mean "world" in its plain universal sense.

Yet:

1. The limited aspect of the word "world" here may involve a Jew/Gentile distinction, but that isn't the primary reason for the distintion
2. What does the word "is" and "proptiation" mean, and what's that tell us about the word "world?" He doesn't tell us.
3. What about the immediate context? How does a propitiation for sins that are not propitiated serve as a confidence booster for John's audience and their own sin? He doesn't tell us.

His arguments are too incomplete to respond to.

 

[NB3K]

When I taught Limited Atonement at a SS class, I was objected with the 1 John 2:2 passage. My reply was simple. The definition of "propitiation" excludes the interpretation of the "Whole World" to mean "everyone".

Propitiation
PROPITIATION, n. propisia'shon.

1. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person; the act of making propitious.

2. In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of men. Rom 3. 1 John 2.WEBSTER 1828

I argued that John's "whole world" meant:

Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

 

[NB3K]

I didn't think anything he presented was unique. Secondly, a million things could be said because it was a very brief sketch over a wide array of texts. Take just 1 John 2:2 for example. His entire critique was based on this Calvinistic argument:
1. The word "world" has different meanings in Greek
2. John is writing to Jews
3. Therefore, it makes sense to say the word world means Gentiles in contrast to the Jews ("Us")

Paul does it in Romans

Rom 11:11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Rom 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

 

[Hilasmos]

And?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

All you can do is present the best exegetical case you can, and leave the results in God's hands, 1Cor.4:7. It's also best to present the positive case for a proper view of the atonement, and then address the passages that challenge that presentation.

Generally, Calvinists do not believe in pitting exegetical theology and systematic theology against one another. Because we believe God's Word is truthful, and already accommodated, we should not be ashamed at all of seeking a "harmonious" end to sound doctrine. Lutheranism criticizes Calvinism for being "too" concerned to reconcile the mysteries of revelation.

When someone says, "I see a prima facie reading of such-and-such a text gives me X, therefore X is the proper reading," they themselves are giving priority to a particular hermeneutical method. If we ask about the inconsistency of that conclusion with regard to other loci, we may get the reply, "I just have to hold them in tension." I don't deny that there are mysteries of revelation, but I do deny that paradox is a highlight of divine revelation. The common Holy Spirit of inspiration does not intend one author to contradict himself or another author. And we should advance interpretations that generate coherence, even when we acknowledge that there may be a weakness in our reading. There are also weaknesses in the other readings!

Let's consider 1Tim.2:3-6 (Cooper's first text). Question 1: Is this a text that is about the atonement? No, it mentions salvation and the ransom paid, it invokes extension language, but it is a text about corporate prayer. Therefore, this text should have something to say to us about the atonement, something that may inform and qualify our understanding--but it is not a foundational text for teaching the atonement. A Universalist (not simply a proponent of universal atonement) could borrow this same text to advance his own aberrant doctrine! A doctrinal Lutheran is NOT a Universalist, and will rebut an attempt by the Universalist to use this text for his purpose.

Cooper seems to admit that "all kinds of men" is a perfectly legitimate understanding of the text by the Calvinist, given the context back to v1 where the term "all men" is first used. Is Paul being particular here? Because if he is, then we need to get out the phone book when we pray. Otherwise, we're going to miss someone (and would regardless of the source we used). Universal particularity, then, isn't Paul's interest.

Of course, we'd also say that he has no interest in excluding anyone in particular. Cooper seems to make a gratuitous assumption that if we reject a particular-universal reading of v1 and v4, we are left with only the option of an particular "elect" reading of the same language. This is patently false, for a "general" reading is sufficient--neither particular-universal, nor particular-individual.

In other words, if we make out that Paul is giving us a duty in this passage to pray for EVERY MAN (and woman, and child on earth), then the church is guilty for having missed and overlooked everyone who has not been prayed over in a particular manner. It will not do (especially with the nature of this argument against the Calvinist in view) to say "I'm good, because I prayed for the whole world this morning," because that's a generalization. 1Jn.5:16, whatever the nature of the statement, indicates that there are some persons who are not to be prayed for! (cf. Jer.7:16, et al.) But even with no one excluded from the prayer in particular, it is facile to claim to have fulfilled this command exactly and in particular, if indeed one only addressed the duty in a sweeping generalization.

So, if this is not the nature of the prayer duty, then the duty given is general in nature, and is in no way exclusionary (but would include any exclusions demanded by any other place in Scripture if brought to bear).


Secondly, it is by no means incompatible with Calvinist doctrine to affirm that God in some sense could be properly described as "desiring the salvation of all men," if all men in general was the import of those words. This is actually debated in some circles among Calvinists, whether there be any sense that God desires the salvation of those for whom he has determined/decreed damnation (that is, desired to put to death). Calvinists have long wrestled with such texts as Ezk.18:23,32, where we read such words as: "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."

So, a Calvinist could be quite happy pointing out an overwhelmingly sufficient atonement made, coming from the God of superabundant mercies; and he could say: "The cross is the evidence that God has a general, indiscriminate desire that all men be saved"--a desire which is evidently neither particular nor effectual, because if it was then Universalism would be an inescapable conclusion. For what does God desire (with an ultimate intention) that he does not accomplish?

This desire is the opposite of what he does NOT desire at the same level, namely that all men perish in their sins. To say that any person (and there are such persons) who perishes in his sin does so to contravene God's final intent for him (which is certainly an expression of His doing "all his holy will," that is his desire) is to conclude history and instate the blessed consummation, in which God is eternally frustrated in his desire. This is an absurdity: that a petty lawbreaker (even on the order of Nero and Hitler) evaded the power of God, who "was not able" (Num.14:16) to bring this one into the Promised Land.

So again, the statement referencing "all men" is shown to be a generalization, a thing predicated of the whole, that is not necessarily predicable of each part in the same sense. The general thrust of Paul is reinforced in v5, in which the exclusivity of God and his Mediator is emphasized. Christ is the Mediator "between God and men." Between God and ALL men? For whom does Christ intercede? Heb.7:25, "Wherefore he is able also to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Jn.17:9, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Yes, Jesus is the ONE Mediator, and that for mankind--in the sense that he is the WORLD's Mediator, and there is no other option. Are any lost, for whom Christ thus prays and pleads, "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me" (Jn.17:11)? Consider Jn.10:26-30, a passage that is (!) about the atonement. Jesus is adamant at that place, teaching that those sheep for whom his life was laid down (v15), who are held safe by the double enfolding grip of the grace of the Father and Son, will be saved. He distinguishes between his sheep and those who are NOT his sheep.


Finally, Paul goes on in v6 to say that Christ gave himself "a ransom for all" (masculine plural, but the anthropos is absent, while it was present in vv1,4). This phrasing should be coordinated with our Lord's own phrasing, Mt.20:28 (Mk.10:45) "the Son of Man came... to give his life as a ransom for many" (pollon vs. panton). Jesus' original terms are set in opposition to any view that would restrict the ransom for a privileged few--nay, the blessing is for many. Paul's use of "all" takes the idea of "many" and maximizes it; but use of "all" in a general sense does not necessarily indicate "every human who ever lived, without exception."

Rather, it is the world-wide scope of redemption that is in view, as a hallmark of the apostle's testimony. This was not a ransom for the Jews alone, but for the ends of the earth. This is the New Covenant witness of the hour; this is why Paul was appointed an apostle, "a teacher of the Gentiles" v7. The import of "all" is thus "from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation." We might as well read it as "all for whom it is intended," or "all to whom it comes effectually," a great host, a multitude; not merely a ransom for the Jews, or the saved of a single generation. But for all the saved.

But, surely it is honest of the Calvinist to say: Himself is a ransom for the saved, and the unsaved are not ransomed. Ps.49:14-15, "Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol; death shall be their shepherd [or death shall graze on them], and the upright shall rule over them in the morning. Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. Selah" It seems plain enough to me. To be ransomed is to be snatched out of the teeth of death. It cannot feed on those who have been delivered from its maw.

Again, the Calvinist apprehends the danger of saying either that the ransom is paid for all the captives, but all the captives do not go free; or that the ransom is paid for all the captives, and hell is an empty threat, for his ransom abolishes death, 2Tim.1:10; his death eliminates hell for all those for whom he shed his blood, and so none are bound for a hell that no more exists. An intermediary position leaves heaven or hell at last in the power of human choice, another position incompatible with monergism. To return to Egypt means one never spiritually left it behind.


I'll say one more thing, before letting this all go. 1Tim.4:9-10 presents no further difficulties, but rather assists me in the interpretation. The adverb "malista," meaning specially, or particularly, is just the qualifier that focuses the work of the Savior on the unique beneficiaries of his sacrifice. This verse is a great illustration of the classic (even Medieval) distinction between sufficiency and efficiency in the work of Christ as Savior. He is THE savior of the world, of all men, for all men. There is no other savior who can save even one. This is an exclusive position, and he is this savior formally and generally thus to all men in all time.

So much for sufficiency. But he is that Savior specially, particularly, to a subset of the whole human race. He is the believer's efficient Savior. He actually saves him, to the very end. He is the Savior of faith. And where there is no faith, he was their only hope, who had no hope in him; and so they perished.