A precis of chapter 9.
This chapter deals with ‘the myth of redemptive violence’.
‘Sometimes love leaves us with no other choice but to let go of a loved one and allow them to suffer the consequences of their own self-destructive decisions.’
Does God resort to violence when dealing with sin?
…‘We humans rely on brute force to stop evil only because we lack the character and wisdom to see alternative ways of arriving at peace (Luke 19:42).
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
A ‘ransom’ is the price paid for delivering someone or some thing from bondage.
Redemption is costly. The price paid for our salvation is Christ’s own death (Rom 3:24f; Eph 1:7).
But many of the ancient theologians (such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, and Peter Lombard) pushed this idea by enquiring as to whom the ransom was paid.…
2 Peter 3:9 ‘The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient toward you, because he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.‘
Does this verse support universalism?
According to Barclay (DSB):
…‘Ever and again there shines in Scripture the glint of the larger hope. We are not forbidden to believe that somehow and some time the God who loves the world will bring the whole world to himself.’
In chapter 15 of The Atonement Debate (2008), Stephen Holmes gives an account of British evangelical accounts of the atonement, with special reference to the doctrine of penal substitution.
Holmes argues three points:-
It is often thought (and taught) that the early church knew nothing of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. This view seems to have been popularised by Gustav Aulen, in his celebrated book Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (trans. A. G. Hebert; New York: Collier, 1969 [1931]). Aulen found mere ‘traces’ of this doctrine in the early fathers.
Many modern opponents of the doctrine of penal substitution tend to follow Aulen uncritically at this point: if this doctrine was not ‘discovered’ until about 500 years ago, how can its proponents claim that it provides an inescapable (possibly central) explanation of what God achieved in Christ?…
According to John Owen (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ), a number of Bible passages ‘clearly and distinctly in themselves’ teach definite atonement (i.e. that Christ died for the elect and not for the everyone). Following is Naselli’s summary:-
(1) Gen 3:15. “Christ died for no more than God promised unto him that he should die for. But God did not promise to him all,” but only the woman’s seed, namely, the elect.…
What if the debate around general versus particular atonement is starting from the wrong paradigm, and therefore failing (on both sides) to do full justice to the biblical revelation?
Trevin Wax thinks this is the case.
‘Both the limited and unlimited views of the atonement are misplaced, because they are putting emphasis on only one portion of God’s salvific work, instead of taking in the vast, universal scope of redemption described by Scripture.’
A first corrective, says Wax, is to recognise that the meaning of Christ’s atoning death is not to separated from that of his glorious resurrection (see 1 Cor 15:17, 18).…
In his book The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (pp73-78), D.A. Carson argues as follows.
Carson begins by noting that the term ‘limited atonement’ is unfortunate. For one this, ‘it is a defensive, restrictive expression’, and for another thing, it obscures that fact that all non-universalists ‘limits’ the atonement in some way: the Arminian, by regarding it as potentially for all, but certainly effective for none; the particularist, by teaching that Christ died only for the elect.…
Walter Elwell provides a summary of the arguments used to support the doctrines of particular and general atonement, respectively.
In favour of particular atonement (the doctrine that Christ died for the elect):-
1. Christ is said to have died for a specific group of people, variously called “his sheep” (John 10:11, 15), “his church” (Acts 20:28), “the elect” (Rom. 8:32–35), and “his people” (Matt. 1:21).
2. God’s intentions cannot be frustrated. If God had intended all people to be saved, all would be saved. …
In theology, we should be as logically consistent as Scripture, but no more so.
Sometimes, we have to accept that a pair of revealed truths are both true precisely because they have both been revealed, not because we can fully reconcile them in our own minds.
Such pairs of truths would include:-
Trinity – God is three and God is one
Incarnation – Jesus is both human and divine
Sovereignty – God is sovereign, and humans are responsible
I have a hunch that something similar has to be said about the extent of the atonement:-
Not only: God in Christ has made provision for the salvation of everyone; but also: God in Christ elects a certain number to eternal life
Robert Lightner puts it like this:-
…‘It is no more inconsistent to believe in sovereign election and unlimited atonement than it is to believe in sovereign election and human responsibility—two parallel and complementary truths.’
