The Scope:
How would you respond if someone asked you this
question: For whom did Jesus die?
- Discuss key texts from Scripture
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
For whom did Jesus die?
- Universal or “General” Atonement: For All.
‣Does not necessarily mean that all will be saved.
- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.
A Part of the Calvinist “TULIP”
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
For whom did Jesus die?
- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.
๏Total Depravity
๏Unconditional Election
๏Limited Atonement
๏Irresistible Grace
๏Perseverance of Saints
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
For whom did Jesus die?
- Universal or “General” Atonement: For All.
‣Does not necessarily mean that all will be saved.
- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.
‣Supralapsarian - Election / Reprobation even
precedes Creation and the Fall.
‣ Infralapsarian - While allowing the Fall, God
decrees to elect/save some.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Limited Atonement: (?)
- John 10:
‣ “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd
lays his life down for the sheep” (vs. 11).
‣ “But you do not believe because you are not my
sheep” (vs. 26). believe
Response:
The text affirms that Christ dies for the sheep;
It does not deny that he died for others.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Limited Atonement: (?)
- John 10:
- Many texts (Jn. 15.13; Acts 20.28, etc.) affirm that
Christ dies for his people / the church — yet this
does not itself disprove Universal Atonement.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:
- The logic of a “ransom”
‣ If the cross was a universal ransom, then it
results in either universalism, or a “double
punishment” for sin—both of which are
problematic.
Response:
Presupposes an overly literal understanding of
“ransom” (lutron) - see earlier lectures.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:
- The logic of “waste” and “efficacy”
‣ If one accepts a strong account of election, it
seems illogical (or even wasteful) to say that
Christ died for all.
‣Others might find “failure” in the fact that Christ
died for all, yet not all are saved.
‣Charles Hodge Quote:
Charles Hodge: (Systematic Theology)
If God from eternity determined to save one portion of
the human race and not another, it seems to be a
contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal
reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son
to die for those whom he had predetermined not to
save, as truly as, and in the same sense that he gave
him up for those whom he had chosen to make the
heirs of salvation.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:
- The logic of “waste” and “efficacy”
‣ If one accepts a strong account of election, it
seems illogical (or even wasteful) to say that
Christ died for all.
Response:
This may seem logical but we must test it against
Scripture lest we elevate “Reason” over “Revelation”
1 Timothy 2.1-6
1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,
intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live
peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who
wants all people to be saved and to come to a
knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one
mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ
Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
Response:
“All without exception” or “All without Distinction”?
1 Timothy 2.1-6
1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,
intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—
2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live
peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who
wants all people to be saved and to come to a
knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one
mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ
Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
Response:
“All without exception” or “All without Distinction”?
All “types” of people
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
1 Timothy 4
9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full
acceptance. 10 That is why we labor and strive,
because we have put our hope in the living God, who is
the Savior of all people, and especially of those who
believe.
Thoughts on what this means?
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
- Titus 2.11-14
Titus 2
11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers
salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to
ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-
controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
- Titus 2.11
- 2 Peter 2.1
2 Peter 2.1
1But there were also false prophets among the people,
just as there will be false teachers among you. They
will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even
denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—
bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Seems to say that Christ “bought” (presumably with
blood) these “heretics.”
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
- Titus 2.11
- 2 Peter 2.1
- 2 Peter 3.9
2 Peter 3.9
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the
Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand
years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping
his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he
is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but
everyone to come to repentance.
The danger for Reformed (Limited Atonement) thinking
here is a kind of “schizophrenic deity”
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
- Titus 2.11
- 2 Peter 2.1
- 2 Peter 3.9
- Hebrews 2.9
Hebrews 2
8In putting everything under him, God left nothing that
is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see
everything subject to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who
was made lower than the angels for a little while, now
crowned with glory and honor because he suffered
death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death
for everyone.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:
- 1 Timothy 2.1-7
- 1 Timothy 4.10
- Titus 2.11
- 2 Peter 2.1
- 2 Peter 3.9
- Hebrews 2.9
Conclusion (in my view):
While “all without distinction”
may make sense of some of
these texts, it does not makes
sense of all.
The Bible simply asserts
repeatedly that Christ died for
all people.
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Does Universal Atonement lead logically to
Universal salvation? (If not, why not?)
- For some it does (e.g. Barth).
The Scope: (Universal or Limited)
Does Universal Atonement lead logically to
Universal salvation? (If not, why not?)
- Universal Atonement without Universal Salvation:
‣Sublapsarian Calvinism (I think this is illogical)
‣Arminianism: Christ dies for all, yet we can refuse
this gift.
‣Wesley: Christ’s death atones for “inherited guilt”
(Adam), yet we must still be redeemed personally -
None will die for Adam’s sin.
Matthew 27.46 (Also, Mk. 15.34)
46About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a
loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
(which means “My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?”) [Ps. 22.1]…
50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice,
he gave up his spirit.
What does this cry tell us about what happened on the cross?
Jurgen Moltmann: (The Crucified God)
“What happened on the cross was an event between
God and God. It was a deep division in God himself, in
so far as God abandoned God and contradicted
himself, and at the same time a unity in God, in so far
as God was at one with God and corresponded to
himself”
…There was “enmity to the utmost degree” as Jesus
became sin for us [2 Cor. 5.21].
Jurgen Moltmann: (The Crucified God)
“In the forsakenness of the Son the Father also
forsakes himself…the Father suffers the death of his
Fatherhood in the death of the Son.”
The Cry of Dereliction:
Utterly Forsaken?
- Jurgen Moltmann:
‣The cross “constitutes” the Trinity in that God
experiences separation in unity.
‣Rejects “impassibility” for a God who suffers with
us.
‣This shows “solidarity” with suffering humans,
and reveals God’s eternal nature as self-
sacrificing love.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Utterly Forsaken?
- Jurgen Moltmann
- R.C. Sproul (“Utterly Forsaken”)
‣ “The Father turned his back and said—excuse
my language—‘God damn you [Jesus]’.”
In very different ways, both Sproul and Moltmann agree
that Christ was utterly forsaken on the cross.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)
- The Patristic Tradition:
‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.
‣Summed up by John of Damascus:
John of Damascus
Neither as God nor as man was he ever forsaken by
the Father, nor did he become sin or a curse, nor did
he require to be made subject to the Father. For as
God he is equal to the Father and not opposed to him
or subjected to him.
In Sum:
Because Jesus is the fully divine Son, the second
Person of the Trinity, it is inconceivable that he could be
divided from or opposed to his Father. (Tom
McCall, Forsaken)
The Cry of Dereliction:
Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)
- The Patristic Tradition:
‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.
‣Summed up by John of Damascus:
- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard
Peter Lombard:
“So let us profess that god abandoned that man to
death in some way…God did not defend him by
displaying his power so that he would not die. The
godhead severed itself because it took away its
protection, but [the union] was not absent inwardly in
regard to the union between the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)
- The Patristic Tradition:
‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.
‣Summed up by John of Damascus:
- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard
- The Protestant Tradition: John Calvin.
John Calvin
We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever
hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be
angry with his beloved Son, with whom his should was
well pleased? Or how could he have appeased his
Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile
to himself?
But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine
anger, that, being smitten and afflicted, he experienced
all the signs of an angry and avenging God. [Christ
felt]…as if he was forsaken by God.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)
- The Patristic Tradition:
‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.
‣Summed up by John of Damascus:
- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard
- The Protestant Tradition: John Calvin.
All deny that Christ was literally forsaken.
The Cry of Dereliction:
An Overview:
- “Utterly Forsaken” (evidence)
‣Jesus says he is forsaken.
‣ If not utterly forsaken, no Trinity, no solidarity with
suffering man (Moltmann)
‣ If not utterly forsaken, no atonement (Sproul)
The Cry of Dereliction:
An Overview:
- “Not Utterly Forsaken” (evidence)
‣Jesus is quoting Scripture.
‣ If utterly forsaken, the Trinity ceases to exist (thus
the very possibility is ruled out).
๏God’s very being is “Communion” (Zizioulas).
How do we settle this debate?
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to the text that Christ is Quoting:
‣Psalm 22.
‣Begins with despair, but ends with trust / hope:
๏24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to the text that Christ is Quoting:
‣Psalm 22.
‣Begins with despair, but ends with trust / hope:
‣Scholars divided over whether to read the end of
the Psalm into Christ’s words.
‣ Is this a way to avoid what he actually says???
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to see what Christ says next.
‣Both Mt. and Mk. mention another loud cry, but
do not tell us the words (if any).
‣Jn. 19.30: “It is finished!”
‣Lk. 23.43: “Today…in Paradise.”
‣Lk. 23.46: “Into your hands…”
None sound utterly
forsaken
or hopeless.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to other texts:
‣John 16.33. “A time is coming…when you will be
scattered…you will leave me all alone. Yet I am
not alone for my Father is with me.”
• Jesus speaks of his passion, yet he denies that
the Father will ever forsake him as the disciples
have.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to other texts:
‣2 Cor. 5.21. God made him who had no sin to be
sin [or, “a sin offering”] for us, so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God.
‣Gal. 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law by becoming a curse for us…
Both seem to speak of a kind of transformation, in which
Christ takes on our sin / curse.
The Cry of Dereliction:
Ways to Answer the Question:
- Look to trinitarian theology:
‣Unless we are polytheists, the Father and the
Son must remain in union, even on the cross.
The Cry of Dereliction:
A Conclusion:
- Christ was truly abandoned (forsaken) unto death,
but this does not imply a breach within the Trinity.
Richard Bauckham:
“It is essential to recognize both that the forsakenness of
Jesus is concretely real and also that both jesus and Father
remain faithful to each other.”
(Jesus and God of Israel)
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Impassibility of God.
Questions:
What is the doctrine of divine impassibility?
Do you affirm it?
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Impassibility of God.
- While virtually the entire Christian tradition affirmed
divine impassibility, the modern era brought a
challenge to the doctrine.
๏Moltmann:
Jurgen Moltmann:
For Moltmann the doctrine of impassibility is a moral
outrage. Only the “suffering God” can help, and “any
other answer” to the moral horrors of the twentieth-
century “would be blasphemy.” For “there cannot be
any other Christian answer to the question of this
torment. To speak here of an absolute God would
make God a demon.
(McCall, Forsaken, 67. Citing Moltmann, The Crucified God, 274)
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Impassibility of God.
- While virtually the entire Christian tradition affirmed
divine impassibility, the modern era brought a
challenge to the doctrine.
๏Moltmann:
- The tradition always held that Christ suffered in that
he was fully human, yet the divine nature remained
impassible.
๏Do you agree?
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Impassibility of God.
- An Answer: Much hangs on what is meant by
“impassibility”
๏Richard Muller (Reformed Historian/Theologian)
Richard Muller
The exclusion of passions from the divine being never
implied the absence of affections. We are not to
confuse impassibility with the Stoic notion of apatheia.
Impassibility, rather, denies any mutation or distress
within God.
The modern writers who argue against the doctrine of
divine impassibility as if it were little more than the
uncritical importation of a Stoic concept are beating,
not a dead, but a nonexistent horse.
(Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 33)
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Impassibility of God.
- An Answer: Much hangs on what is meant by
“impassibility”
๏Richard Muller (Reformed Historian/Theologian)
- Properly conceived, impassibility refers to the fact
that God’s character is unchanging and his holy
love does not suffer change or fluctuation.
๏The doctrine is often linked to “divine simplicity”
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- Defined: God is not a “composite” being. He has no
“parts” because such parts would (1) be
ontologically prior to his existence, and (2) render
him subject to decay.
- Challenged: Like impassibility, divine simplicity has
been challenged in the modern era.
๏Karl Barth
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- Defined: God is not a “composite” being. He has no
“parts” because such parts would (1) be
ontologically prior to his existence, and (2) render
him subject to decay.
- Challenged: Like impassibility, divine simplicity has
been challenged in the modern era.
๏Karl Barth: “An idol…devouring everything
concrete.”
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- Proposed: Yet like impassibility, divine simplicity
may serve a noble purpose if properly defined.
- John Duns Scotus (and his version of simplicity)
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- John Duns Scotus (Three types of distinctions)
1.Real - table | cow
2.Rational -morning star | evening star - “venus”
๏These may be helpful, but not genuine
3.Formal -A genuine distinction between entities
that are truly inseparable. (say, the “flatness” and
the “hardness” of a tabletop).
๏These may be helpful, but not genuine
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- John Duns Scotus:
‣Distinctions within God are “formal”—really
distinct and really inseparable
๏e.g. Father, Son, Spirit.
๏e.g. Holy Love (Wrath and Mercy)
‣ In Atonement, this is helpful because it shows
that God’s wrath and love are not separate.
Thomas McCall Forsaken, 84
If we accept some doctrine of divine simplicity, it is
unthinkable that, say, God’s righteous justice demands
one thing while his love and mercy demand the
opposite. Nor is it possible that some divine attributes
(or divine persons) work for some results while others
work for other results.
…Divine wrath is not the opposite of divine love. It is
not even in tension with his love. Quite the contrary is
true—the righteous wrath of God is the (contingent)
expression of the holy love that is the essence of God.
The Trinity and Atonement:
Atonement and the Simplicity of God.
- John Duns Scotus:
‣Distinctions within God are “formal”—really
distinct and really inseparable
๏e.g. Father, Son, Spirit.
๏e.g. Holy Love (Wrath and Mercy)
‣ In Atonement, this is helpful because it shows
that God’s wrath and love are not separate.
Questions?
The Spirit and Atonement:
The Father and Son receive a lot of attention in
the discussion of Atonement, but what about the
Spirit’s Role???
- What Part Does the Spirit Play in Atonement?
- Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa
The Spirit and Atonement:
The means by which Christ is conceived.
The means by which Christ lives a holy life.
- We must not merely appeal to a “divine nature” at
this point (Christ is guided by the Spirit).
The means by which Christ is raised.
The means by which anyone believes in Christ
- 1 Cor. 12.3: No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,”
except by the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit and Atonement:
The means by which Christ is conceived.
The means by which Christ lives a holy life.
- We must not merely appeal to a “divine nature” at
this point (Christ is guided by the Spirit).
The means by which Christ is raised.
The means by which anyone believes in Christ
The means by which we are “made one” with
Christ.
Resurrection & Atonement:
How does the Resurrection relate to our
justification?
- Key Text: Romans 4.25: “He was delivered over to
death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification.”
- What does this mean???
- If Christ took all our sin on the cross, why would we
not be justified apart from his resurrection?
- Paul rejects this altogether (1 Cor. 15)
- 0
1 Corinthians 15.17
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you
are still in your sins.
Resurrection & Atonement:
Possible links between Resurrection and
justification: (modified from A. Warnock, Raised with Christ)
1.Raised to bring about our future resurrection.
- Our future resurrection is linked to justification.
- While true, this doesn’t seem to be Paul’s point.
2.Raised to prompt faith in us.
- The resurrection inspires faith, by which we are
justified.
Resurrection & Atonement:
Possible links between Resurrection and
justification: (Modified from A. Warnock, Raised with Christ)
3.Raised for his own justification, by which we are
also justified.
- The resurrection is proof that Christ is “in the
right,”despite the verdict handed down by men.
4.Raised, so that we can be united with him by faith.
- For Paul, imputation flows from participation.
Resurrection & Atonement:
Conclusion:
- Paul, in Romans 4.25 and 1 Cor. 15.17, shows that
without Resurrection, there is no Atonement.
- This should caution against purely forensic or penal
substitutionary accounts of Atonement.
- It is only by our union with the risen Christ that we
may be justified - this comes by the Spirit, through
faith, and it REQUIRES a Resurrection.
- T.F. Torrance
T. F. Torrance
When the Protestant doctrine of justification is
formulated only in terms of forensic “imputation” of
righteousness or the non-imputation of sin..the
resurrection is bypassed. If we think of justification
only in the light of the crucifixion… then we have
mutilated it severely.
We require an active relation to Christ…an actual
sharing in his righteousness. This is possible only
through the resurrection
(Atonement, 224).
Resurrection & Atonement:
Conclusion:
- Paul, in Romans 4.25 and 1 Cor. 15.17, shows that
without Resurrection, there is no Atonement.
- This should caution against purely forensic or penal
substitutionary accounts of Atonement.
- It is only by our union with the risen Christ that we
may be justified - this comes by the Spirit, through
faith, and it REQUIRES a Resurrection.
- T.F. Torrance