Concerning the theological debate on the extent, nature, and purpose(s) of Christ’s atonement, from my own experience I have found that many Christians have misrepresented ideas about what the main views basically propose. I am not about to engage in a theological and/or exegetical discussion on extent of the atonement at this point (nor will I do so in the comments below). But I have decided to craft a simple graph that I hope helps you to become more informed and to more accurately understand the main views, namely, those other than your own.
Calvinism
Thomas R. Schreiner Refuting the Idea of Election (and Predestination) as Corporate as Opposed to Individual
While reading Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical And Theological Reflections” I ran across this subpoint in which he makes some good refutations against the concept of corporate election–the idea that God has elected to salvation a corporate entity (i.e., the Church) as opposed to individuals. I hope that you will find his argument thought provoking and beneficial.
To say that election involves the selection of one group rather than another raises another problem that warrants an extended explanation. Most scholars who claim election is corporate argue that personal faith is the ultimate and decisive reason why some people are saved rather than others. Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that faith is the result of God’s predestining work. But those who opt for corporate election think that they have a better conception of election than Calvinists, and at the same time they can maintain that faith is what ultimately determines one’s salvation. Now it seems to me that there is a flaw in this reasoning that is fatal to those who espouse corporate election. If God corporately elects some people to salvation, and the election of one group rather than another was decided before any group came into existence (9:11), and it was not based on any works that this group did or any act of their will (9:11–12, 16), then it would seem to follow that the faith of the saved group would be God’s gift given before time began. But if the faith of any corporate entity depends upon God’s predestining work, then individual faith is not decisive for salvation. What is decisive would be God’s election of that group. In other words, the group elected would necessarily exercise faith since God elected this corporate entity.
A Mark Dever Quotation on Decisive Atonement
On January 28th I posted a youtube video of an excerpt of a sermon by John Piper in which he described the real difference between the Arminian view of atonement (unlimited or universal) and the Calvinistic view of atonement (historically called limited atonement). (Click here to see that post). Yesterday I was reading a book by Mark Dever entitled The Gospel and Personal Evangelism. At one point in the book, Dever makes a statement in passing regarding the the decisiveness of Christ’s atonement which really hits at the crux of this “extent of the atonement” debate. Again, instead of being a debate over universal v. limited extent, the centerpiece of the issue is whether Christ’s death was a potential or effectual atonement.
The apostles clearly learned from Jesus how they were to understand his death on the cross; and to teach Christians about this, the Holy Spirit has inspired various images in the New Testament that convey the reality to us: Jesus as a sacrifice, a redemption, a reconciliation, a legal justification, a military victory, and a propitiation.
John Piper on “Limited” Atonement
This is a video of what I am assuming is an excerpt from a sermon by John Piper. In this excerpt Piper explains in very understandable language what is in many senses the essential difference between limited atonement (the Calvinistic view) and unlimited/universal atonement (the Arminian view)–two dominant views on the extent of the atonement. He clarifies what, in my opinion, are rather inappropriate terms (limited, unlimited, universal, etc.).
Continue reading
“I’m a [Insert Label Here]”: Concerning the Use of Labels
Labels. What’s the use? What’s the point of using a label? Well, the typical reason is for convenience sake. Instead of having to explain what you are all about you simply say a word or two and describe yourself much faster. However, are labels effective? Do they really serve their purpose? I would like to convince you that they typically do not, and, in fact, often can be rather harmful. I would like to look at three different sample labels that will serve as spring boards into some points about the potential harmfulness of labels.
Continue reading
Kirk E. Miller 