Introduction
As we approach the Easter season, I hope that you have been thinking about the cross. My own reflection has taken me in multiple directions - each of them stirring my affections toward the gracious, merciful Savior who absorbed God's righteous wrath against sin as my substitute. O, what a Savior!
When it comes to pondering the cross, though, one of the most debated questions is, "For whom did Christ die?" While it can be argued that one is no Calvinist at all unless he affirms particular redemption (the view that God, in Christ, intended to save only the elect, and that Jesus suffered as only their substitute), there are many who are "Calvinistic" in their soteriology (affirming God's absolute sovereignty in man's salvation: his sovereign election, man's total inability to choose God apart from regeneration, and God's effectual, regenerating grace), yet deny particular redemption. This article will probably be of help mainly to them.
The Old Paradigm
The question of the extent of the atonement can be framed in a couple different ways:
- For whom did Christ die?
- Whose sins were paid for on the cross?
- Are there any sins which were left unpaid by Jesus' sacrifice?
A New Paradigm
It is important to remember that the punishment which was laid upon Christ on the cross was infinite suffering. In other words, it is impossible to limit it. The penalty for even one sin is infinite. Therefore, there is no difference between the penalty of one sin and the penalty of one million sins. The penalty Jesus paid was sufficient to cover the sins of everyone who has ever lived. If God had seen fit to elect one more person to salvation, Jesus would not have suffered any more. If God had seen fit to only elect one person (period) to salvation, Jesus would not have suffered any less. Therefore, the real question regarding the extent of the atonement is not which sins had their penalty paid. In some sense, the penalty for all sin - namely, eternal, infinite suffering - was paid by Jesus on the cross.
However, there is a sense in which the atonement was limited to only the elect. It is the elect only who God intended to save by the death of Jesus. Though He paid an infinite punishment that could potentially satisfy God's wrath against all sin, He did so as the divine substitute for the elect only.
Conclusion
The penalty of sin is infinite. The punishment Jesus suffered was infinite. So the question, then, is not only one of payment. It is also (and just as importantly) one of representation. Jesus endured infinite suffering so as to pay an infinite penalty, and He did so as the representative for the elect only. This perfect representation (by both His sacrifice and intercession) effectively results in the salvation of those whom Jesus represents.
The atonement of Christ was a definite atonement designed to redeem a particular people. Jesus died as the substitute for those people, paid an infinite penalty in their place, and effectively secured their eternal redemption! O, what a Savior!
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Rev 5:9-10)BY HIS GRACE (1 Cor 15:10) – FOR HIS GLORY (1 Tim 1:17)
I have a problem with the sub-topic " a new paradigm" In John 1:29, We have John saying ""Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
ReplyDeleteWhy was it significant for John to say "sins of the world" and not just "sins of some/many men" as Calvinism teaches? (Link doesn't work btw)
"We ALL, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL"
(Isaiah 53:6).
"He [John the Baptist] came as a witness to testify concerning that Light, so that through Him [Jesus] ALL MEN might believe"
(John. 1:7).
Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that One died for ALL, and therefore ALL died. And He died for ALL, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again"
(2 Corinthians 5:14-15).
"Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for ALL MEN"
(1 Timothy 2:6).
Jesus...suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for EVERYONE"
(Hebrews 2:9)
Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to ALL MEN, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ALL MEN"
(Romans. 5:18).
Thanks!
Carl:
ReplyDelete1. Do not comment here again unless you use your real name.
2. Your comment is addressing the doctrine of particular redemption from a perspective outside of Calvinistic theology. This article, on the other hand, addresses the question from within Calvinistic theology. In other words, as I said in the article, the intended audience are so-called "four-point Calvinists" who reject particular redemption. This article presupposes that God intends to save only the elect. Since you reject the presupposition upon which this article is based, you really have no business interacting with it. It's pointless for you to do so, and it's pointless for me to entertain your pointless arguments.
Wait to comment until I begin addressing some of the under-lying issues in my "Doctrines of Grace" series.
Carl:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, thanks for pointing out the broken links. They used to lead to some other work I've done on election and the atonement, but I've unpublished those articles because I'm reworking them and including them in my current "Doctrines of Grace" series. Thanks for the heads up, though. I've removed the broken links.