There are those, among us, who hold to the “L” of the TULIP; or Limited Atonement. This is the belief that Christ died for only the elect; a certain group of individuals whom God choose for salvation. This is a belief I have never ever held; I once entertained it, but I could never take that final leap into the Abyss known as the “Doctrines of Grace” (to some). Anyway, one of the passages thatΒ potentially stands in the way of the “Limited Atonement” concept is found in one of Paul’s so called pastoral epistles; I am sure most of you are familiar with it:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. ~I Timothy 4:10
I know the Lombardian distinction of Jesus being sufficiently Savior of all men, but only efficently so for the elect; but that is hard pressing when we come to a passage, that on its face (and even contextually) has a global referent in regards to whom Paul assigns Jesus’ “Saviorship.” In other words, that distinction seems very artificial (and even eisogetical) when we come to a passage like this. So if your are a TULIP’r, or follow the so called “Doctrines of Grace,” how do you deal with this passage? Do you appeal to the medieval distinction I just noted, or do you have another creative way around this passage that will allow you to say something less or more than this passage would seem to indicate? I mean it seems clear that no matter what view of the atonement and salvation you adhere to, that the ground upon which Christians see Jesus as the Savior is squarely placed in his atoning work (inclusive of the cross). So wouldn’t itΒ seem that if Paul is calling Jesus the Savior of all men (potentially), that the extent of his atoning work was equally universal in scope?
The way I see the extent of the atonement is to follow a qualified “Limited Atonement” theory. As most of you know I follow the contours of thought associated with what we have designated as “Evangelical Calvinism.” In this view we see a Limited Atonement, in the sense that the atonement was limited (or particularized) to Jesus Christ. So all of humanity was represented inΒ his particularized humanity for us.
Hey Bobby,
The way I understand 1Tim 4:10 is that Christ’s death purchased common grace for all men, and salvation for the elect. Spurgeon had a pithy quip: “Christ’s death bought [or brought, I forget] some good things for all men, and all good things for some men.”
So, the way Christ actually saved all men was to treat them different than the fallen angels, who were damned without the offer of salvation (2Pet 2:4). The way He is the Savior of especially them that believe, is that He actually purchased (redeemed) them by suffering as their substitute, and fully propitiating the Father’s wrath against their sin.
Hope that’s helpful.
Hey Mike,
Great to hear from you, thanks for chiming in! Both Bavinck and Kuyper appeal to this common grace/special grace distinction (leading to Kuyper’s “sphere theology”). Yet, I still find this approach to be highly front-loaded with an a priori commitment to a particular theological grid that I think has bigger metaphysical problems attached to; in regards to its doctrine of God.
I can appreciate how you are coming to your interpretive conclusions, Mike; but in the end I just cannot follow those conclusions because I think, again, it presents an artificial flavor to the text. But your response does help to illustrate how a 5 point Calvinist interacts with this passage; so thank you for spending the time!
Well, the “especially of believers” is interesting, is it not? I agree that there’s a “global reference” going on, but you might as well argue that everyone is saved. After all, Paul is saying, “savior of all men,” right? All means all, right?
I’m just jesting with you a bit, but you see where this leads. This passage is far and away from being able to settle the whole “universal vs. limited” atonement debate. It seems to me that the “especially of believers” is clarifying the extent of the “all” in the previous group of words (“savior of all men”). So, it fits rather nicely with Reformed theology, but, really, this passage can fit just about any interpretative grid: Reformed, Arminian, Barthian, Liberal…you name it. My own position is a mixture of confessional Reformed and Barthian thought patterns, which I don’t have time to detail, but I think this passage is basically saying what I would say: atonement is both universal and limited, and systematic categories are required to parse this out (in what “sense” is it universal, etc.). I think a supralapsarian Christology — a la Barth — is the best way to ground the universal aspect of the atonement, especially as Torrance teases it out with the two natures of Christ. Anyway, I’ve got to get back to studying Greek!
By the way, “existentialism” is misspelled in your blogroll. π
@Kevin,
Tis is true. Ultimately this is going to come back to one’s a priori commitments relative to their pet interpretive tradition; which is really what my response to Mike says.
I realize that this is the case, but I was just reading through this section of Scripture again; and every time I do this passage jumps out at me with all of my Barthian/Torrancean bells and whistles going off π . You should do a post someday developing, a bit, your own approach.
Sweet, you’re going to be one of us Greek geeks now π !
And thanks for the heads up on the misspelling of your blog title; I am almost embarrassed π .
True Calvinism is about balance and not being biased. This is what Calvin himself truley understood. The balance is between human responsibility and divine sovereignty. You don’t solve the problem by removing man’s inability or by removing man altogether from their duty. We are to be careful on realizing that God is sovereign in all things and never fails but always accomplishes his will. The view on the atonement is this: Christ died for every single person who ever lived but his ultimate plan or purpose in the atonement was ONLY for the elect.This is true Calvinism.
@Answer Man,
You’re rather blunt and quite confident, eh (your name and tenor of your comment)? I don’t agree with you, but alas, what’s new; I don’t agree with any classic Calvinist construals. Since I see Christ, and his humanity pro nobis (for us) as ‘elect’ humanity; then necessarily I see all of humanity ONTOLOGICALLY represented in his. This is what makes what we are calling Evangelical Calvinism, “EVANGELICAL”—at least one of the things. Which means I reject the logico-causal notion (or Lombardian) that his death was sufficient for all, effecient for the elect. That is neither biblical nor does it capture the inner-logic of Christ’s life for us. At least that’s what I think.
PS. I would rather you use your real name, I don’t like anonymous comments. Thanks.
Hey this is answer man, I apologize if I came off being rude but that wasn’t my intention. I just want people to acknowledge the attributes of a Holy, Just, and all Loving God without abrogating them in their theology. I’m not being arrogant. I’m willing to grow in knowledge and that’s how it should be with others. I must admit though after reading that post it still seems a bit contradictory. I’m getting the idea that you believe in eternal justification which teaches that the elect were justified in the eyes of God before they came to faith. That also you don’t preach the Gospel to unbelievers but somehow to believers. Correct if I’m wrong. Let me ask you these: Was God willing that Adam should fall? If Christ died only for the elect how do you escape the belief of eternal justification if you don’t believe in it? Do you agree that assurance is the essence of saving faith? I believe in a Calvinistic universal atonement so I believe that is ontological.
Simon,
Yes, you’re reading me wrong. Instead of me re-writing what I’ve already spent hours upon hours writing; why don’t you check out my ‘EC Themes’ page, and then see if you still think what I hold is contradictory. My approach, theologically, is dialectic V. analytical. In fact you are reading me as if I am a classic Westiminster Calvinist; which makes me wonder if you read my post? Like I said, I believe that Jesus’ humanity for us is elect humanity, and thus, “objectively” it could be said that all are elect, but not spiritually; since that requires a spiritual union, through faith, with his humanity. And we know that not all believe.
Your position is unclear to me. Do you affirm the 5 points of Calvinism? Because, to be clear, I do not! Evangelical Calvinism is offering an alternative strand of Calvinism that developed in Scotland. I think you ought to read my Themes page, and that might provide more context for you to question me through. Thus far your questions of me make little sense relative to what I have written over and again here at the blog.
Hey
Let me clarify: Everybody is able to state what they believe but not everybody is able to logically hold to what they believe. I read what you wrote so you don’t have to rewrite everything. I asked you what I did to point out the logical fallacy of the imbalance to what you hold. You rejected the “sufficient for all and efficient for some” idea but sounds almost like you agree with it which makes me wonder if you know what it truly is. Your problem is the position of your view which is basically Neo-orthodoxy. It allows a person to be ignorant of the balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility because the foundation of that theology is unstable. It denies the Bible as being the word of God and confuses common and special grace. It’s hypothetical universalism because it goes too far in compromising the universal aspect, using words like “elect” or “elect humanity” and “predestination” all for the sake of diminishing the fact that God has chosen a people for himself that will never perish. You have denied that Christ died only for the elect and by doing so you gave the covenantal blessings to every single man who ever live. The entire world isn’t the church but only those out of the world. When the Bible speaks of being “in” Christ it means to be identified with him. Someone can’t be an unbeliever and a believer at the same time. Yes there is a since that it’s referring to the whole world but there is a since where it penetrates into a more personal perspective. There are similarities to the first and second Adam but we can’t forget the differences. Romans 5:17 says “those who RECEIVE”, now we can look at this and try to dismiss the idea of it being twofold and say that it means everyone who ever lived without exception but then you lesser human response and gave the effectiveness to the perished. Yes I’m a five point. All of T.U.L.I.P which means “God’s glory ” against the five points of the remonstrance in which the arminians didn’t understand. The true reformed view does justice to ALL of Scripture. In other words its a way of thinking and that’s the issue with some. So there is more to the five points then the five points and that’s including the L. The answer is what the Scriptures say and that is Christ died for many. We need to be careful not to fall away from the truth of the word and into deceptive theology. The neo-orthodox view is not Calvinistic and therefore not Biblical. It’s only up to the theologian to see past all the mind tricks and come to the truth. Ill be praying for you brother, thanks for your time and have a happy new year.
@Simon,
I’ve been around these parts for quite a few years. You continue to make presumptuous comments about what I do or don’t understand about Federal Calvinism and/or 5 Point Calvinism (i.e. its popular label). What you fail to grasp, apparently, is my point on prolegomena; as I said, I follow a Dialectic approach, which by definition will have the capacity to allow for tension and dynamism within its articulation. Since I don’t move and breathe within the Ramist and/or scholastic mode that you seem to assume; I have the freedom to breathe the fresh air provided by the life giving Spirit of Jesus Christ revealed in his hypostatic life pro nobis. It is here, principially (as Richard Muller might say) that the theological categories I use to interpret scripture through emerge (or where the ‘inner-logic’ of Christ’s life in the Incarnation becomes the principled methodology through which I see all of Scripture held together in its Depth Dimension as T. F. Torrance might say).
I can understand where you’re coming from (unfortunately); but you are failing to grasp the power that your own a priori commitments are having in regards to how you exegete ALL of scripture. 5 point Calvinism, because of its doctrine of God, which springs from its reliance upon Substance metaphysics must construct a mechanism through which their Monadic god of power and Law (or immovability, the classic construal of Divine Simplicity) remains static in his relation to his creation. So they (you) use what has been called the decretum absolutum (the absolute decrees) in order to keep God untouched an unmoved by his creation. The interesting thing about this situation, is that once God in Christ incarnates God’s life becomes determined to be what it is by creation, since the decrees are intended to be the matrix through which God relates to his creation. In this scenario, when God becomes man in Christ, Christ becomes subordinated and shaped by creation such that there is an Arian rupture (see Athanasius) placed into God’s life; so that the Son becomes determined to be what he is by creation and no longer by the divine sovereign freedom that his predestination in his pre-temporal election demands (if we are going to honor Nicene and Chalecodnian christology and Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism).
In the end, then, Simon, I will pray for you! Your a priori commitments have put you in a situation wherein you are following a less than adequate christology (at least a heterodox if not worse), and a non-Evangelical/Trinitarian doctrine of God that has God’s person’s subsisting from a concept of godness (substance) that does not proximate what Scripture nor the ‘Fathers’ articulated.
As far as the neo-Orthodox charge; you don’t seem to understand what that whole thing entails. I understand the rhetorical way that you are using it—the way that all Reformed who follow Van Til’s critique of Barth use it—but it is in error when directed at Barth, and especially what I am advocating which is not Barthian simpliciter, at the least what I articulate is in the footsteps of TF Torrance. Emil Brunner could be construed as Neo-Orthodox given his allowance for a natural theology, proper. But you are far off the mark when you apply that to what I am getting at. There is much more to this than you seem to be aware of, Simon. I appreciate your zeal, but zeal only takes us so far.
Happy New Year!
Pax Christi