"I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it." - Charles Spurgeon
If someone has a sticking point when it comes to the so-called, "5 Points of Calvinism," it's almost always, without exception just one particular point on which they are "stuck,"
...limited atonement.
Unless you have a universalist approach to Scripture that assumes everyone is going to heaven when they die, you limit atonement. The question is not IF you limit it, but HOW.
You either must limit is efficacy or its ubiquity. You must say its power is limited or that its promiscuity is. Which does it lack? surety or scope? Because it must lack at least one.
What Spurgeon is quoted as saying above assumes that the atonement is limited in quantity, not quality. It saves to the utmost everyone that it saves. It works for those whom it goes to work. But by this definition of the atonement, it's scope is limited or reduced from everyone in the entire world, to those elected out of the world. All kinds of people will be elected: poor, rich, black, white, men, women, old, young, sick, healthy, etc... But not each and every one from each and every kind is elected.
Many find this distasteful and opt for a more broad scope saying, "the atonement made it possible for each and every individual regardless of race, nation, tongue, gender, etc... to be saved." In this arrangement, the scope is broadened to include everyone ubiquitously, however, the efficacy is now limited. In this understanding, everyone CAN make it to heaven, but no one assuredly will. In this case, at least in theory, everyone could reject salvation and the atonement and heaven could be vacant. Granted, the benefit would be that everyone could do it, but the fact remains that no one will assuredly do it and those who have been previously done it should fret that perhaps they didn't do it enough or must do it again later.
Limiting atonement's scope is the only measure of providing any security to anyone's salvation. While it does mean that some will most assuredly not be saved, it means that some most assuredly will.
John Owen put it this way...
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men.
3. Some of the sins of some men.
In which case it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.
b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
In other words, we are left with 4 options, Christ died for:
All of the sins of all men
All of the sins of some men
Some of the sins of all men
Some of the sins of some men
If Jesus died for all of the sins of all men, everyone is going to be saved.
If Jesus died for some of the sins of all men, all men still have sins for which they must themselves atone.
If Jesus died for some of the sins of some men, all men still have some sins of which they must atone for themselves and some still have all their sins left to atone for.
But if Jesus died for all of the sins of some men, then some men will actually be saved, not because of works, lest any of them should boast, but by grace through faith, which is itself a gift flowing from the finished work of Jesus Christ, our Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment