J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 6 Octorber 2021
Preamble
Apart from the addition of endnotes, I have made only a few modifications to my original, unacknowledged post in the article below, most of which are corrections (few though they may be). Headings have been added to enhance readability.
Remonstrating against a Reduced Scope of the Atonement, and Countering the Garbled Charge of Non–High Calvinist Christians Following a False God: a Response to Jeff Crippen
[I]t is a false statement to insist that Christ died for your abuser. Christ died for His people, for His elect (see John 17 for instance). […] The god who loves the wicked as much as he loves his children, the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, habitually and characteristically oppressor of widows and orphans, is in the fact the false god [sic]. (Jeff Crippen, ‘This Is a Very Damaging Teaching That Abusers Love’ [par. 4; emphases added][2])
‘For whom did Christ die?’ Differentiating two articulations of the extent of the atonement
The point I would like to specifically address here is what appears to be a frank denial of the doctrine of universal atonement: the view that Christ died for all persons without exception. I am aware that, from your strict/high Calvinistic confessional stance, affirmation of the teaching variously referred to as definite atonement, particular atonement, particular redemption, and limited atonement, the view that Christ died in a salvational sense for the elect alone (i.e. those who are finally saved), is taken for granted, and am unsurprised that you should reassert your belief in this doctrine on occasion. To be forthright, theologically, I personally am an Arminian/Remonstrant, and consequently believe universal atonement to be well-founded scripturally. It is not my aim to argue the point here.
Is a Christ who died for all a false god? A slapdash assertion countered
That said, what troubles me is that, when broaching a topic as vital, and yes, even controversial (if only in Protestant quarters[3]), as the extent (or scope) of the atonement (i.e. ‘For whom did Christ die?’), a statement as careless and unnuanced as ‘the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, […] is in the fact the false god [sic]’ should be made. To all appearances, this assertion alienates the vast majority of believers throughout the past two thousand years for taking scriptures such as John 3.16, 2 Corinthians 5.14–15, 1 Timothy 2.6, and 1 John 2.2 at face value, and makes them out to be idolaters (unwitting or otherwise) for holding what you believe to be a spurious understanding of scripture, namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike.[4] For, even if the doctrine of particular atonement is correct (a point which I do not concede), and it could be shown that a strict Calvinistic luminary such as John Owen has reasonably demonstrated that ‘all’ and ‘world’ should be taken in a restricted sense in the aforementioned texts (which I also deny), you stack the deck so as to make out a deity who should die for all persons without exception a false god.
The scriptures affirm universal atonement and the damnation of the finally obdurate
I do believe Christ died for all, yes, because I believe the scriptures affirm this, and I believe that this may be (and has been) demonstrated exegetically.[5] But I believe the scriptures also affirm that those who refuse to respond positively to the Good News, namely those who do not turn/change their thoughts and works and give their allegiance to Jesus Christ as King, shall perish and never enter the kingdom of God. The work of Christ on the cross, in the case of the unfaithful and recalcitrant, does not become efficacious (i.e. the redeeming work of Christ is not applied), because they refuse to bow their knee to him in their hearts and lives, having not trust or faith in God (which pleases him [Hebrews 11.6]), but presumption alone.
In summary, the procurement of salvation via the sacrificial and substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and its application are distinct; the former does not necessitate the latter.[6]
The enmity of God against evildoers established; the possibility of reprobation considered
As for the wicked and abusers, I heartily concur that, according to the scriptures, God does indeed loathe and despise them (e.g. Psalm 5.5). There is a sense in which I can understand how abuse survivors/targets/victims might come to find the doctrine of universal atonement offensive or even implausible simply by considering the utter degeneracy and malevolence with which they have had to endure and contend.
I do know this: God stands against these oppressors and evil human beings. Judicial hardening can and will result for the treacherous, the boastful, the arrogant, and enslavers. I believe it is possible for God to cut off abominably wicked sinners in this life and not afford them any further grace to turn and be saved, leaving them in their blindness, for he is within his rights to do so. God shall not be mocked.
The special relationship between God the Father and those united to his Son
Lastly, I should say that there is also no doubt in my mind that God loves his children, those who are in Christ Jesus, those born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit, more than the generality of humankind who are now estranged from him. Those who are incorporated, or united, into Christ, namely those who have submitted to the conditions of the proclamation of the Good News (e.g. Mark 1.15; John 3.16; Acts 2.38), are persons for whom God has a unique, familial affection. Having been united to Christ, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus is now rightfully their Father. And, for those loving God, Jesus Christ has become their eldest brother (e.g. Romans 8.28; Hebrews 2.11–12). These are adopted as children, sons and daughters of God.
Notes
1. The article may be viewed by clicking on the following link: <https://unholycharade.com/2021/09/27/this-is-a-very-damaging-teaching-that-abusers-love/>. Readers are encouraged to read the article in its entirety.2. For the link to this article, see note 1 above.
3. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, for example, are two significant Christian traditions which recognise the universal extent of the atonement. For a survey of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, strict Calvinistic, Wesleyan-Arminian, and evangelical universalist perspectives on the scope of the atonement, see Adam J. Johnson (ed.), Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019).
4. In the original, instead of ‘namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike’, I bungled my initial thought, stating the opposite of what I had intended(!): ‘namely that Christ did not die for any but the finally saved alone (i.e. the elect).’
5. For biblical and theological defences of the universality of the atonement, see David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), pp. 154–83; idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127; John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed: Wherein the Most Glorious Work of the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, Is Vindicated against the Encroachments of Later Times (1651; repr., London, UK: Thomas Tegg, 1840); I. Howard Marshall, ‘For All, for All My Saviour Died’, in Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds), Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2003), pp. 322–46; Terry L. Miethe, ‘The Universal Power of the Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995), pp. 71–96; Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2011), pp. 136–54; Grant R. Osborne, ‘General Atonement View’, in Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger (eds), Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), pp. 81–127; Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 103–38; idem, ‘The Intent and Extent of Christ’s Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (eds), Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2015), pp. 51–68; J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle (Nashville, TN: Kregel Academic, 2022), pp. 119–28; Geoffrey D. Robinson, Saved by Grace through Faith or Saved by Decree? A Biblical and Theological Critique of Calvinist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022), pp. 190–229.
6. The last sentence in this paragraph is not in the original.
Addenda
Addendum A (17 Sept. 2022). For readers who are yet unsure of the scripturalness of the doctrine of universal atonement, particularly those who may be presently adhering to a strict or high Calvinistic understanding of the extent of the atonement (whether knowingly or unknowingly), allow me to encourage you to consult the citations in note 5 (above).* Additionally, for articles and book excerpts relating to this matter, please refer to the ‘universal atonement’ tab under the heading ‘Name and subject docket’ on the right-hand sidebar of this web page.
Addendum B (21 Sept. 2022). For two fairly recent, worthwhile online articles that argue for the universality of Christ’s atonement, over against theological approaches which seek to limit the number of human beings for whom Christ died salvationally to the elect alone, see the following links (the latter of which must be read only subsequent to the former):
- David L. Allen, ‘Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone’ (sic) (9 Sept. 2019);
- idem, ‘Responding to My Responders’ (12 Sept. 2019).
Addendum C (2 Jan. 2023; 26 Mar. 2023). See a Neo-Remonstrant’s ‘Idea lists’ on my Amazon profile page, particularly ‘Contra Calvinism’ and ‘Pro Arminianism / Remonstrantism’, in order to view and/or purchase literature countering Calvinistic theology and arguing in favour of Arminian theology (respectively)*:
Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.
* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website or via my Amazon Idea Lists. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.
Latest revisions: corrected a typographical error in preamble (13 Oct. 2021); added a comma in first par. of response; added one note, namely n. 5; converted what was formerly n. 5 to n. 6 (17–8 Nov. 2021); removed square brackets in n. 4 (23 Nov. 2021); corrected page number of one citation in n. 5 (1 Dec. 2021); altered one letter from lower to upper case in citation (31 Jan. 2022); slightly modified n. 3 (19 Feb. 2022); last sentence in one paragraph converted to a paragraph of its own (9 May 2022); added a paragraph break in one place (31 May 2022); added five citations to n. 5; omitted a term in n. 5 (3, 6 Nov. 2022); added one citation to n. 5 (16 Feb. 2023).
What happened?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
DeleteI have taken notice that, hitherto, I have neglected to respond to your enquiry. The answer is, Not very much. I apologise for my belated, disappointing response.