Limited Atonement
Recently I got into a little debate on Twitter over what essentially came down to limited atonement. It was mostly respectful. The other guy got upset when I called it a debate, as he thought it was just a discussion (no word on what he thinks of Trevin Wax's call to argue).
It started by me replying to a Matt Walsh tweet, with another person replying to what I said. He and I agreed that Jesus died only for believers. In came the third individual to debate that point.
I am not a five-point Calvinist, not being fully sold on the reformed view of the elect. I believe there is some room for man's free will in God's grace, and reject the vowels in TULIP (Unconditional election and Irresistible grace). I admit I could be wrong, I just haven't been convinced otherwise yet. However, when it comes to limited atonement, count me in. Scripture is pretty clear that not everyone gets saved. I don't know of any decent church that believes this heresy, known as universalism. We may disagree on some of the Calvinist/Armenian debates, but those are generally not salvation issues. Usually it has more to do with the how or the mechanics of God's grace. Universalism is simply outright rejected by both sides.
But back to my point on limited atonement. For me it's pretty simple. I want to connect two events: Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26), and the rapture (Revelation 14). In the Garden, Jesus prays to God, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (v. 39). What cup is Jesus referring to? One explanation comes from Revelation 14, when the third angel announced, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and received a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever received the mark of its name" (vs. 9-11).
The cup we're talking about, is the cup of God's wrath. When you make the connection between these scriptures, you see that Jesus drank from the cup through his death, and that those not of Christ will drink of this cup at the end of time. Those two ideas are generally agreed upon.
So my argument is that if Jesus drank of this cup once to atone for the sins of all people, then no one needs to drink of it at the end of time, making Revelation 14:9-11 wrong (thus losing the inerrancy of scripture). You see, if Jesus drank to wash away sins, then those sins no longer need to be atoned for. After all, "it is finished." Anyone for whom he drank of the cup is now sinless before God, meaning he or she is justified. If he or she is justified, they do not need to experience God's wrath and are not condemned to hell. So if Jesus drank of the cup, dying for the sins of all mankind, then all of mankind is justified before God and have access to heaven, whether they believe it or not. This would be universalism.
However, if Jesus died for only the sins of believers (and here it doesn't matter if you take a Calvinist view of the elect or not), then only those who believed, believe, or will believe are made righteous and do not need to experience God's wrath. Those who never come to repentance and believe will still have to drink of God's wrath, keeping Revelation 14:9-11 in tact.
This is the thrust of my argument. There come in questions about what "many" (e.g., Matthew 8:11, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Luke 13:24, John 10:42), means versus "all" (e.g., Matthew 8:34 and Matthew 10:2), I think context matter. "All" does not always mean "all." Consider John 8:2 when, "Early in the morning [Jesus] came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them." Those who argue against the idea that Jesus died only for the sins of believers say that "all" always means "all." So here does "all of the people" mean all of the people around the world? They wouldn't argument that. Does it mean literally "all of the people" in town? I don't think they would argue that either. Just because we read "all" doesn't mean we should think "everybody."
In addition, "many" does not mean "all." "Many" actually implies a portion. Jean Segura had many hits last year cannot mean he had all the hits last year. Other players had hits, and Segura did not have hits in all of his at-bats (though he did lead the National League).
Logically, it doesn't make sense to say that Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind. Had he done that, everyone would be sinless before God. That's universalism. The counter-argument that his death only applies if the individual has faith handcuffs the power of Jesus' death. This counter-argument says that Jesus death is worthless unless someone believes it, that Jesus' death wasn't powerful enough to wash away sins of those who don't believe. I find this argument to limit the power of the cross.
It's an interesting discussion, and my study of the issue has actually reopened the possibility of me to fully accept all of reformed theology. I don't think I'm ever going to be entirely there, but this certainly has drawn me closer.
It started by me replying to a Matt Walsh tweet, with another person replying to what I said. He and I agreed that Jesus died only for believers. In came the third individual to debate that point.
I am not a five-point Calvinist, not being fully sold on the reformed view of the elect. I believe there is some room for man's free will in God's grace, and reject the vowels in TULIP (Unconditional election and Irresistible grace). I admit I could be wrong, I just haven't been convinced otherwise yet. However, when it comes to limited atonement, count me in. Scripture is pretty clear that not everyone gets saved. I don't know of any decent church that believes this heresy, known as universalism. We may disagree on some of the Calvinist/Armenian debates, but those are generally not salvation issues. Usually it has more to do with the how or the mechanics of God's grace. Universalism is simply outright rejected by both sides.
But back to my point on limited atonement. For me it's pretty simple. I want to connect two events: Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26), and the rapture (Revelation 14). In the Garden, Jesus prays to God, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (v. 39). What cup is Jesus referring to? One explanation comes from Revelation 14, when the third angel announced, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and received a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever received the mark of its name" (vs. 9-11).
The cup we're talking about, is the cup of God's wrath. When you make the connection between these scriptures, you see that Jesus drank from the cup through his death, and that those not of Christ will drink of this cup at the end of time. Those two ideas are generally agreed upon.
So my argument is that if Jesus drank of this cup once to atone for the sins of all people, then no one needs to drink of it at the end of time, making Revelation 14:9-11 wrong (thus losing the inerrancy of scripture). You see, if Jesus drank to wash away sins, then those sins no longer need to be atoned for. After all, "it is finished." Anyone for whom he drank of the cup is now sinless before God, meaning he or she is justified. If he or she is justified, they do not need to experience God's wrath and are not condemned to hell. So if Jesus drank of the cup, dying for the sins of all mankind, then all of mankind is justified before God and have access to heaven, whether they believe it or not. This would be universalism.
However, if Jesus died for only the sins of believers (and here it doesn't matter if you take a Calvinist view of the elect or not), then only those who believed, believe, or will believe are made righteous and do not need to experience God's wrath. Those who never come to repentance and believe will still have to drink of God's wrath, keeping Revelation 14:9-11 in tact.
This is the thrust of my argument. There come in questions about what "many" (e.g., Matthew 8:11, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Luke 13:24, John 10:42), means versus "all" (e.g., Matthew 8:34 and Matthew 10:2), I think context matter. "All" does not always mean "all." Consider John 8:2 when, "Early in the morning [Jesus] came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them." Those who argue against the idea that Jesus died only for the sins of believers say that "all" always means "all." So here does "all of the people" mean all of the people around the world? They wouldn't argument that. Does it mean literally "all of the people" in town? I don't think they would argue that either. Just because we read "all" doesn't mean we should think "everybody."
In addition, "many" does not mean "all." "Many" actually implies a portion. Jean Segura had many hits last year cannot mean he had all the hits last year. Other players had hits, and Segura did not have hits in all of his at-bats (though he did lead the National League).
Logically, it doesn't make sense to say that Jesus died for all the sins of all mankind. Had he done that, everyone would be sinless before God. That's universalism. The counter-argument that his death only applies if the individual has faith handcuffs the power of Jesus' death. This counter-argument says that Jesus death is worthless unless someone believes it, that Jesus' death wasn't powerful enough to wash away sins of those who don't believe. I find this argument to limit the power of the cross.
It's an interesting discussion, and my study of the issue has actually reopened the possibility of me to fully accept all of reformed theology. I don't think I'm ever going to be entirely there, but this certainly has drawn me closer.
Comments
Post a Comment