Category Archives: Extent of atonement

2 Peter 3:9 – ‘The Lord wishes all to come to repentance’

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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.’

…

Owen, Scripture, and definite atonement

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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.…

Reframing the debate on the extent of the atonement

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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).…

Carson on the extent of the atonement

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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.…

Particular and general atonement

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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. …

Atonement: unlimited AND definite

Walking With Giants Posted on by

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.’

…

John Newton on the extent of the atonement

Walking With Giants Posted on by

I find myself drawn, a little reluctantly, to consider the disputed issue of the extent of the atonement.  I say ‘a little reluctantly’, because while, on the one hand, I agree that thinking Christians should pursue truth as far as Scripture leads, on the other hand I am not persuaded that the question can be fully resolved in this life, and I fear lest we seek to be wise beyond what is written.

The issue, for me, does not involve Arminian or Hyper-Calvinistic tenets (both of which are, to my mind, clearly lopsided). …

Extent of the atonement – a head count

Walking With Giants Posted on by

To be sure, we do not establish the truth or falsity of a doctrine by the number or names of those who support it.  Nevertheless, David L. Allen’s outline of ‘notable representatives’ of the four main views provides a helpful map.

I refrain from defining these four positions here, because to do so would require more space, nuancing, and qualification than is possible at this time.

My own tentative additions to Allen’s list are marked with an *asterix.…

Doctrinal tensions

Walking With Giants Posted on by

In the course of a helpful summary and discussion of John Owen’s treatise on The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (a celebrated work defending the doctrine of particular atonement), Andrew David Naselli offers, in tabular form, a reminder of the tensions that surround several significant doctrines:-

In a footnote, Naselli adds: inspiration, prayer, evangelism, and progressive sanctification.

I’m a fan of systematic theology (which is, after all, essentially an attempt to determine what Scripture as whole teaches on a given topic). …