I was recently reading Adrian Warnock's response to Phil Johnson's post on 1 John 2:2 and the atonement. Read Phil's post first, and then read Adrian's post second. Following Adrian's post was a comment which I thought worthy enough of including on this blog. If anyone knows where it came from, please leave comment or feedback with the URL of the location where it comes from. Scroll on down to the bottom of the dialogue to see my brief analysis and thoughts.

I stirred nervously in my seat, and cleared my throat. I was not at all sure I wanted to ask the next question, but I also realized I had to.

“You have already told me you have no desire to be called a ‘Calvinist.’”

“That is correct,” Martin nodded.

“Is this just a concern over party labels, or is there any key theological area where you disagree with the Calvinists?”

“How do you mean?”

“Well, I was talking with someone at my home church, and he told me something that horrified me. He said that Calvinists believe in something they call limited atonement. They think that Jesus only died for Christians, and not for all men.”

Martin laughed, and then said, “I’ll answer your question, if you promise to hear me out.”I had a sinking feeling that this meant he did believe it, but I nodded my head anyway.

“First, all orthodox Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes that there is an eternal Hell limits the atonement. One group limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit the atonement.”

I nodded, so he went on.

“Secondly, I don’t know who came up with the phrase limited atonement to describe this position. He may have been a theological genius, but when it comes to public relations, he must have been a chucklehead.”“In what way?”

I asked.“One fellow says he believes in a limited atonement, and another says he believes in an unlimited atonement. Which one appears to do justice to the Scriptures?”

“The second one, of course.”Martin smiled. “Of course. God so loved the world; behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; One died for all, and so forth.”

I nodded again, wondering where in the earth he was going.

“Now, suppose we hear the same two fellows, but this time the language is changed. The first now says he believes in a definite atonement, and the second affirms he believes in an indefinite atonement. Who sounds more biblical?”

“Well, now the first sounds more biblical.”

“Of course. Christ laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a definite end in view for a definite group of people.”

“Okay. It seems to me that when put the first way it shows that one group does justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the second way, it shows that their theological opponents do justice to the efficient purpose of the redemption. And both sides have their verses.”

“But both sides, if they believe the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of verses.”

“How can you do that? If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some of the universal passages quoted earlier?”

“One of the reasons I object to terms like limited atonement is that it does nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that many have in their minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He died. But there is no reason we must believe that number was a small one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with nothing less than a saved world.”

“Do you believe that there will be more people saved than lost?”

“Certainly. It says in 1 John 2:2 that He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours only but also for the whole world.”

“Wait a minute,” I said, “That just means that every person can be forgiven for their sins if they cone to Christ.”

“But that is not what it says. It says that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s wrath is turned aside. If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then God’s wrath is turned away from the whole world.”

I sat silently for a moment, and Martin went on.

“Notice how the verse does not read. It doesn’t say that He is the
propitiation for our sins, because we believed, and not only ours, but He is a propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we know they won’t.”

I laughed. “Well, of course it doesn’t say that.”

“See, the difficulty with verses like this, from the universalist standpoint, is that they prove too much.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“The Bible teaches that Christ’s death is powerful to save. This power comes through in the many universal passages. So I reject the position that wants the universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words, there is no potential propitiation in 1 John 2:2. It is actual. Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned aside from the world.”

“Does this present the Calvinists with a problem?”

“It surely does. When the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the same time, I believe it is impossible to refer to such wonderful universal statements to a tiny snippet of humanity.”

“I don’t understand you.”

“Suppose you went to a football game at your school, and the attendance was spectacular. Would you be lying if you said that the whole school was there, when in fact Jones was in his room sick?”

I laughed. “No.”

“But suppose you said the whole student body was there, when it was just you and Jones. Would there be a problem?”

“Certainly.”

“Because…?”

“Because in the first instance my language would not at all be misleading, while in the second instance it would be.”

“Correct. Those who believe what the Bible says about election, but believe the elect to be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their theological opponents are not much better. They turn such glorious texts about a saved world into a world which could be saved, but probably won’t be.”

“So if we continue in this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather eschatology?”

“Well, yes. Although my eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would take us off track at the present. Some future discussion perhaps? It should suffice to say that the Bible teaches about an atonement that is efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the world.”

“And you are saying that this is different than saying that Christ died for each and every person.”

“Yes. The problem people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute mean the same thing by for.”

“What do you mean?”

“Given that not all men are saved, contrast these two statements: First, Christ died for each and every man. Second, Christ died for His people. The word for has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of the atonement.”

“Can you illustrate what you mean?”

“Sure. Suppose you have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about the extent of the generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the gift is the same (money), while the generosity varies.”

“Okay,” I said, “So what is the debate about?”

“In one view, the philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out in the street, stuffing money into pockets. He is not giving away opportunity, he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive money?”

I thought for a moment. “So in the area of salvation, you are saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men.”

“You’ve got it.”

“Well, I think I understand it anyway. But you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t accept what you are saying right off. This is going to take some hard thinking and Bible study.”

“That is exactly what it takes. And don’t rush it. Don’t agree to anything until you see it in the Scriptures. So which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?”

So what are your thoughts? Does it confuse? Does it bring clarity? If you're sharp you picked up on the fact that there is clearly an undercurrent of eschatology driving the soteriology and christology. And that eschatology is postmillenialism, the theological conviction that the gospel will ultimately and eventually reign victorious in the world through the church. And it is only in this theological position that the more philosophical than exegetical discussion above best fits.

In response to both Phil and Adrian's posts, we must always side with exegesis and not philosophy. Contrary to Nicene Theology's blog post, Phil's post does in fact lean on exegesis, and more particularly the hermeneutical importance of circles of context. When compared to John's other writings, his usage of the word 'world' is not so 'unlimited' as traditionalism wants to cry. I'm more inclined to disagree with Adrian that this is not 'over-systematizing.' As he would put it,

"We have to interact with the bible on its own terms, and personally I would rather allow the scripture to speak even if it means I become slightly less confident of my so-called 'system'."

The principles of exegesis and hermeneutics which Phil applies, in my mind, does seem to allow the Bible to speak on its own terms. So, I'm wondering: perhaps it is the unwillingness to experience any hermeneutical discomfort that pushes us to reject the exegesis. If so, then that discomfort becomes in itself a 'system' or mould into which we pour our exegesis.

Adrian's position seems strikingly close to Amyraldianism. This is seen in the statement, "what thelogians call 'common grace' was in fact purchased by Jesus' blood." Some pigeon-holed Calvinists would see this inherent in Adrian's post, and would outright reject him as a 'non-purist' in his Calvinism. That's ugly Calvinism.

I myself seem to lean back and forth between the Amyraldian view of the atonement and the Calvinistic view. Later this week I'll post an article I write several years ago that reasoned out 1 John 2:2 according to this viewpoint.

I love you Adrian and Phil! I'm proud to have you as 'webbuddies.' Thanks for your continued love for the church which we all agree is the only institution ordained by God and purchased by His blood!

posted by rob wilkerson  # 10:00 AM