As Clear As It Gets . . . Extent of the Atonement

Posted on by

The Bible says:

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; . . . ~II Corinthians 5:14

How much more clear does it get? How in the world passages like this can be construed through the typical sufficient/efficient dialectic so often forwarded by our “friends,” actually boggles my mind. There is no qualification needed, this passage is as clear as it gets; Jesus died for all (lets not engage in JW “translation” or exegesis and place parenthesis next our “pet-passages” [i.e. all the elect, or something].

22 thoughts on “As Clear As It Gets . . . Extent of the Atonement”

  1. Bobby, how do I express amen in a way that it almost blows the windows out, in this soundless com box?

    amen.

  2. Another verse that jumped out to me as I was reading through Romans was this in regard to the Jews:

    And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
    (Rom 11:23 ESV)

    In the midst of the great “Calvinistic” passage on election, Paul indicates that even when God’s hardening of their hearts, it is still possible for the Jews to turn from their unbelief. The Gospel is still available to them.

  4. Matthew,

    Great point . . . I like that: “The Gospel is still available to them.”

    Heather,

    No, I would say all are “objectively” reconciled to God (cf. Col. 1); but not all experience that “subjectively” (or spiritually) . . . instead they experience “Gospel-wrath.”

  5. No, I would say all are β€œobjectively” reconciled to God (cf. Col. 1); but not all experience that β€œsubjectively” (or spiritually) . . . instead they experience β€œGospel-wrath.”

    Hm.
    I understand the re-orientation of creation to be the reconciliation that you mention.

    I was referring to those who do not experience reconciliation “subjectively”. Perhaps I used the wrong word. There is the essential activity of repentance which is involved in entering into a saving relationship with Christ.

    Maybe I’ll just be quiet.

  7. Bobby:
    I appreciate your content. You are helping me come up to speed on Torrance’s thought quickly. I am just getting into his published lectures. I am liking what I see!!

    However, IMHO, you sound a little like the angry minority when the majority does not take you seriously. You might get more “classical” folk to read Torrance if your tone is a little softer.

    Thanks for the blog,
    Paul

  8. Hi Paul,

    welcome, and thanks. What’s your background, theologically?

    To be honest I’m just passionate, and don’t think really think this stuff is an academic game; I didn’t grow up “Reformed” and only came to identify myself as “Reformed” through the Torrance/Barth spectre. So as far as being an “angry minority,” not really, I honestly don’t care if the “Establishment” or “Reformed orthodoxy” gives me a hearing at all (at least not the leaders in that program — they won’t).

    I don’t know if you read me over at Scott Clark’s blog, before he banned me, but my intention with him was to provoke to think outside his presumed box (which is really quite easy); yet he only invoked the party line on anyone who would associate with TFT or Barth. Certainly the ire rises when error is being communicated; this is how I approach this issue, I think Reformed orthodoxy is in steep error on serious issues — thus my passion.

    I’m glad you’re reading here, I would like to know you theological background; you’ve got me curious πŸ™‚ .

    Thanks for commenting.

  9. Paul,

    Btw, I appreciate your view on my approach; I do realize I’m a bit rambunctious, but that’s really how I tic . . . take that away, and you take away my motivation for study.

  10. Bobby:
    Regarding church, I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church, but broke away when I went to college. IVCF opened my world, personally and theologically. I met many kids from Reformed type churches and I devoured all of the Anglican writers I could get. In seminary, my wife and I joined a progressive Plymouth Brethren where many of my NT profs went. We have been PB since, despite some serious disappointment with the movement. I have an affinity for the Anglican ideal of walking down the middle of the road.

    Theologically, between my Reformed friends and Anglican writers (e.g. John Stott, JI Packer), I started with a form of Calvinism. I attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity in Chicago because of the broader Evangelical climate and enjoyed the freedom to rethink things. I have a hard time accepting entirely a system which does not handle the diversity and “contradictions” in Scripture honestly or shaves the edges off.

    So I moved away from Dispensationalism to Ladd to Hoeksema and now back toward Darrell Bock. I moved from Classic Calvinism, as you label it, to Barth to Torrance. I began reading Eastern Orthodox theologians and leaders due to our involvement in the Romanian church. My hope is that Torrance will show me a way to combine the insights of the early Fathers with the insights of Calvin and Luther. We will see.

  11. Wow, Paul, thanks for sharing! I would have to say that we are very similar in background and outlook. Interestingly relative to the dispy question, I’ve gone full circle myself (just ask anyone who has read me long); I find Bock to be the most convincing.

    I think Torrance is the perfect guy for what you’re looking for! If you don’t mind, what books have you read of TFT’s?

    Btw, we have our very own TFT expert here at the blog in Dr Myk Habets (did his PhD on Torrance’s Theology of Theosis, which I’m supposed to write a book review for πŸ˜‰ ). And then another TFT up-and-coming expert, Adam Nigh, hangs around here as well. And yours truly is looking for PhD programs with hopes of doing my work on TFT and Calvin as well. In short: you’re at the right place if you like TFT πŸ™‚ ! Have you checked out the TFT Fellowship site: http://www.tftorrance.org/index.htm ? You should become a member, it’s free. (You’re not in the Pacific Northwest are you?).

  13. I have joined the TFT Fellowship. I have dabbled in a few of his books, e.g. Scottish Theology, the Mediation of Christ, the Hermeneutics of Calvin. I have the Christian Doctrine of God, Incarnation and Atonement. I am working my way through Incarnation slowly. My current reading project is in hermeneutics. Won’t return to TFT until that is finished.

    I am curious about theosis, because it sounds like Paul’s idea of glory and conformed to the image of Christ. I have found Ben Blackwell’s blog (PhD candidate at Durham) helpful, http://dunelm.wordpress.com/. Calvin’s emphasis on union with Christ sounds like common ground with E. Orthodoxy.

    Thanks for the blog.

  14. That sounds great, Paul! All of those books are excellent! Don’t forget his “Ground and Grammar of Theology” (I really appreciated that one). If you can get your hand on Myk’s book, then you should; you can find it here: https://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calctitle=1&pageSubject=3093&sort=pubdate&forthcoming=1&pagecount=2&title_id=9281&edition_id=12062

    And for on online review of Myk’s book on “Theosis” go to our friend, Dr Jason Goroncy’s blog here: http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/theosis-in-the-theology-of-thomas-torrance-a-review/

    Thanks for the link to Ben’s blog (I think I’ve come across his site before), I looked it over, it looks good!

  16. Hi kc. Thank you for the article. It was indeed interesting πŸ™‚
    I agree with Glen that repentance is an ongoing attitude of believers. Perhaps it could be described as a God-wrought “state of being” rather than simply a human action?

    It occurred to me that perhaps I should have referenced the verses following the one Bobby quoted as I’m thinking the passage speaks of those who, from our perspective, actively reconcile with Christ.

    I see what Bobby is saying about all being reconciled to Christ. In my understanding, this is what opens wide the door of salvation to any who desire to come. And then in v 20 the call goes out to readers to “be reconciled to God”. I believe the same Greek word is used throughout the passage, so I was thinking there is necessarily a human response involved (thus my original question and mention of repentance).


    2Co 5:20 Then we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as God exhorting through us, we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
    2Co 5:21 For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

  17. Hey Kc,

    thanks and great to hear from you! I hope you’re feeling better!!

    Heather,

    Calvin has a helpful concept of “Double-Grace,” that both justification and sanctification are necessarily grounded in Christ . . . thus “union with Him” is the prior condition from whence both aspects (indeed all aspects i.e. glorification) flow. As far as human response, this is where TF Torrance is really helpful in thinking about the humanity of Christ for us, and His mediation for us. Our response is Spirit created (as was Jesus’ in our stead), therefore in order to realize what it means to be in union with Christ we must have this “faith response” ourselves.

    I think the II Cor 5 passage is key. There is a grammatical/syntactical flow wherein the all he died for are now being called to recognize the reconciliation Christ died for and accomplished for “all.”

  19. Heather,

    There is alot to what I’m saying, it requires more than my little sound-byte treatment; maybe I’ll do a post on it soon.

    I stopped by Craig’s πŸ™‚ . . . thanks for the heads up, he’s dealing with a very important question.

  20. I’m glad you decided to join the discussion, Bobby. The concept of God’s grace seems to be somewhat elusive, yet is so essential to the Christian faith…

  21. I’m glad you decided to join the discussion, Bobby. The concept of God’s grace seems to be somewhat elusive, yet is so essential to the Christian faith…

    Um. I wasn’t deliberately impersonating my husband. He agrees with me, though πŸ™‚

  22. Craig,

    Thanks for the invite! Grace has certainly been a crux issue throughout the history of the church’s interpretive and theological work. Think of Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of nature/grace or Augustine’s understanding (I wrote a paper on this once, maybe I should try and find that thing and post it sometime).

    Heather,

    πŸ™‚ . . . thanks for the e-vite, Heather!

Comments are closed.