Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Extent of the Atonement

Transcript

The Extent of the Atonement · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome everyone to Reformed Thinking.
0:02
This is the podcast where we try to unpack Christian theology,
0:06
doctrine and really think about how it applies to living a
0:09
thoughtful God honoring life today.
0:11
That's right. And this.
0:12
Is the deep dive. Our mission here is always to
0:14
take a well a big stack of information sis through it and
0:18
pull out the most crucial insights for you.
0:20
Get to the heart of the matter. Exactly.
0:23
And today, wow, we're diving into something central, truly at
0:27
the core of our Christian understanding, the atonement of
0:31
Christ, specifically, the biblical and theological grasp
0:34
of. It it's foundational, no doubt
0:36
about it. We're.
0:36
Going to be wrestling with two really core questions, questions
0:40
that have shaped Christian thinking for centuries, you
0:43
know, and they touched directly on God's character, the scope of
0:46
salvation, everything. Yeah, big stuff. 1st For whom
0:50
did Christ die? This gets at the the extent of
0:53
the atonement, How far does it reach?
0:55
And 2nd for what did Christ atone?
0:58
Which looks more at the range of its effects?
0:59
What did his death actually accomplish?
1:01
Right, the scope, extent and scope.
1:03
It's such a rich topic and it connects directly with our daily
1:06
walk with God. It shapes how we understand
1:08
salvation, God's nature, our place.
1:11
So let's start digging in. Sounds good, and it's worth
1:13
saying upfront. All evangelical Christians
1:16
really start from a shared base here.
1:18
We all agree Christ's death has infinite value.
1:21
Infinite value meaning it's sufficient.
1:23
It's a powerful enough, valuable enough to cover the sins of
1:27
every single person who has ever lived or will live, no matter
1:31
how many it's worth isn't the issue.
1:33
So the value isn't debated. Not among evangelicals, no.
1:36
The critical point, the disagreement, is about God's
1:39
specific purpose or intent and in sending Christ to die.
1:44
The why behind it? For whom specifically?
1:46
Exactly. Was God's intention to make
1:48
salvation available genuinely available for every single human
1:51
being, or was His specific aim to secure the salvation of a
1:55
particular group, the elect? And that really sets the stage
1:58
for our first big question, doesn't it, the extent for whom
2:02
did he die? So as you laid out, two main
2:05
views really emerge when we ask for whom did Christ die?
2:10
We've got particular atonement and universal atonement.
2:13
Let's let's tackle particular atonement first.
2:16
This is often the view held in many Reformed circles.
2:19
What's its core belief about Christ's sacrifice?
2:22
Right. So particular atonement,
2:24
sometimes called limited atonement, though many preferred
2:27
definite atonement, Its core assertion is this.
2:30
Christ's death was intended to effectively secure the salvation
2:34
of the elect and only the elect. Secure it, not just make it
2:38
possible. Exactly the purpose wasn't
2:40
merely to open a door for anyone to potentially walk through, but
2:43
to actually purchase, guarantee, and ring about the salvation of
2:47
those specific individuals God had chosen from eternity.
2:50
So it's about a definite accomplished redemption for a
2:53
specific group. Yes.
2:54
The idea is that Christ's death achieved precisely what God
2:57
intended it to achieve, which was the certain salvation of his
3:00
chosen people. It's definite in its design and
3:03
effect. OK.
3:04
And proponents of this view, they obviously look to in
3:06
Scripture, you often hear phrases like his people, his
3:09
sheep, the church used in support.
3:12
Could you walk us through some key passages and how they're
3:14
interpreted from this perspective?
3:16
Certainly a really foundational 1 is Matthew 1.21.
3:20
The Angel tells Joseph about Jesus.
3:22
He will save his people from their sins.
3:24
His people. Right.
3:26
The emphasis there for particularists is on the
3:29
possessive his. It points to a specific group
3:32
belonging to him, not an undefined.
3:34
All salvation is for this defined community.
3:37
OK, that's clear. What else?
3:38
Then you have John chapter 10. This is huge.
3:41
Jesus identifies himself as the Good Shepherd and in verses 11
3:44
and 15 he says I am the Good Shepherd.
3:47
The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
3:49
For the sheep. Explicit, Very explicit.
3:51
And then crucially, later in that same chapter, verses 26 and
3:55
27, Jesus tells some who don't believe in him.
3:58
You do not believe because you are not my sheep.
4:01
My sheep listen to my voice. I know them and they follow me.
4:05
So he defines the sheep as believers, those who follow him.
4:09
Exactly. So the particularist argument
4:11
goes like this. If Jesus defines his sheep as
4:15
those who believe and follow, and he says he lays down his
4:18
life for the sheep, then logically his death was
4:21
specifically and intentionally for this group, the elect, and
4:24
not for those who are not his sheep.
4:26
It seems selective. That's a powerful connection
4:28
they make there. It is, and there are others.
4:31
John 15.13. Greater love has no one than
4:33
this. To lay down one's life for one's
4:36
friends. Again, the focus is on a
4:38
specific relationship, friends, not the entire world in general.
4:42
Friends, not enemies, or just anyone.
4:45
Right then you look at passages connecting Christ's death
4:47
directly to the church. Acts 20.28 says the church was
4:51
purchased with his own blood. Ephesians 5.25 says Christ loved
4:54
the church and gave himself up for her.
4:56
Specifically, the church. Yes, these verses highlight that
4:59
special, particular relationship, suggesting His
5:01
sacrifice was aimed directly at redeeming her, the Church, His
5:04
Bride. OK, what about verses that use
5:06
broader terms like all I'm thinking of Romans 8.32 maybe?
5:11
Good question. Romans 8.32 says God did not
5:14
spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.
5:18
Now on the surface us all might sound universal, right?
5:21
But particularists emphasize the context.
5:24
Look at the surrounding verses in Romans 8 verses 28293033.
5:28
Who is Paul talking about? Those who love God called
5:32
according to his purpose, the predestined call justified,
5:36
glorified. Exactly.
5:37
The elect. So within that context, us all
5:40
clearly refers to all of us who are elect.
5:42
All of us who believe and are being saved.
5:44
Not every single person. Without exception.
5:46
The context defines the all. That makes sense, seeing how
5:49
context shapes the meaning. So beyond these specific verses,
5:52
how do particular AS build their case using logic, connecting it
5:55
to other doctrines? What are the inferential
5:58
arguments? Right, they argue, if it's
5:59
coherently with other key theological truths.
6:02
One major one is Christ intercessory work, His ongoing
6:05
work of praying for believers. How does his prayer relate to
6:08
his death? Well, theologians like RB Kuiper
6:10
pointed to John 17.9. Jesus is praying his high
6:14
priestly prayer and he explicitly says I am praying for
6:17
them. I am not praying for the world,
6:19
but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
6:21
He specifically excludes the world from that prayer.
6:24
Precisely. Kuiper's argument and others, is
6:27
that Christ's work as priest involves both sacrifice
6:30
atonement and intercession prayer.
6:32
Since both are priestly functions, they must have the
6:35
same scope, the same objects. If his intercession is limited
6:39
to the elect, those you have given me, then his sacrifice
6:42
must also be limited to them. So the argument is, if he only
6:47
prays for the elect, he must have only died for the elect.
6:49
That's the logic. Louis Birkhoff took it further,
6:52
arguing the atonement is the basis for Christ's intercession.
6:55
His prayers are effective because his blood was shed.
6:58
And since his prayers are always effective, John 11.42 says I
7:02
knew that you always hear me. And his prayer in John 17 is
7:05
limited. Then the atonement grounding
7:07
those prayers must also be limited in its intended scope.
7:10
OK, I see the connection they're drawing.
7:11
What other logical arguments are there?
7:13
Another one revolves around the nature of a ransom.
7:16
Passages like Matthew 20.28 and Mark 10.45 speak of Christ
7:21
giving his life as a ransom for many.
7:23
Right, a payment to free someone.
7:25
Exactly. Now, if Christ's death was truly
7:28
a ransom paid for all people, wouldn't that mean all people
7:31
are automatically freed? A ransom, once paid and
7:34
accepted, achieves its purpose, liberation.
7:37
That seems logical. If the price is paid, the
7:39
captive goes free. But Scripture is clear that not
7:42
everyone is freed from sins penalty.
7:44
Many face final judgement. So the particularist asks, if
7:48
Christ paid the ransom for someone who ultimately perishes,
7:51
does that mean the ransom failed?
7:53
Or worse, does it mean there's a double payment for their sin
7:56
once by Christ and then again by the person in hell?
7:59
That raises A theological problem.
8:01
They argue it suggests an inconsistency or inefficiency in
8:03
God's plan, almost like the ransom was wasted for those who
8:06
aren't saved. So they conclude the ransom must
8:09
have been paid only for those who are actually freed by it,
8:11
the elect. Yeah, OK.
8:13
And you mentioned a link to election earlier.
8:16
Yes, a strong historical and logical link.
8:19
This goes way back to Augustine and was common among many
8:22
Reformed theologians, even some early Lutheran's.
8:25
The argument, perhaps most famously articulated by Charles
8:28
Hodge, is that it seems contradictory for God to
8:30
sovereignly choose not to save certain individuals the doctrine
8:34
of election predestination, and yet send Christ to die
8:37
specifically for their same individuals.
8:40
It would seem like God is working against himself.
8:42
Or that his plan lacks coherence.
8:44
If God predetermined not to save someone, why would he then
8:47
provide the specific means for their salvation through Christ's
8:50
death? Hodge and others argue this
8:52
implies a lack of foresight or a divine action that achieves
8:55
nothing for those people. This view usually assumes that
8:58
God's decree to elect is logically prior to his decree to
9:01
provide atonement. The atonement, then, is the
9:04
means specifically tailored to save the chosen ones.
9:06
That definitely lays out the particularist case very
9:09
thoroughly. Scripture logic, coherence with
9:13
other doctrines. But you know, for many people
9:16
the idea of a limited atonement just feels restrictive.
9:19
It seems to clash with how they understand God's love.
9:22
What's the counter view? Universal atonement?
9:25
How does it frame the core belief?
9:26
Yes, that intuitive feeling is exactly where the universal
9:30
atonement or unlimited atonement perspective often starts.
9:33
Its core belief is that God, in his love for the entire world,
9:37
intended Christ's atonement to make salvation genuinely
9:40
possible for every single human being.
9:42
Possible for all, not guaranteed.
9:44
Exactly. Christ died for everyone, for
9:47
the whole human race. His death removed the barrier of
9:49
sin universally. However, and this is key, the
9:52
benefits of that death salvation itself only become effective for
9:56
an individual when they personally accept it through
9:58
faith. So the provision is universal,
10:00
but the reception is individual. Precisely, and it's important to
10:04
note this view isn't just held by Armenians.
10:07
Many Calvinists also hold 2 forms of universal atonement,
10:10
sometimes called 4 point Calvinism or Ameraldianism, so
10:14
it crosses some traditional lines.
10:17
OK, if the particularists focus on his people and the church,
10:22
what are the key scriptures that proponents of universal
10:24
atonement point to? Where do they see the Bible
10:27
speaking about Christ dying for the world or all people?
10:31
There are quite a few passages they see is very clearly
10:33
teaching a universal scope. A big one is John 1.29, where
10:37
John the Baptist sees Jesus and declares, behold the Lamb of God
10:41
who tucks away the sin of the world.
10:43
The world seems pretty broad. They take world there in its
10:46
most natural sense, all of humanity.
10:48
Then, of course, there's John 3.16, probably the most famous
10:51
verse in the Bible. For God so loved the world.
10:53
That He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in
10:56
Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
10:58
And verse 17 follows. For God did not send his Son
11:01
into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world
11:04
through him. Whoever believes implies the
11:07
possibility is open to anyone. That's the argument.
11:10
God's love is directed toward the world He gave his Son for
11:14
the world. Salvation is available to
11:16
whoever believes the provision is universal.
11:19
The condition is belief. OK, what else?
11:22
2nd Corinthians 5.1415 is another key text.
11:25
Paul says we are convinced that one died for all and therefore
11:29
all died and he died for all. For all repeated twice.
11:32
Yes, Universalists understand all here to mean all humanity.
11:37
Christ's death was on behalf of every person, providing the
11:40
basis for reconciliation for everyone.
11:43
Any others that are particularly strong for this view?
11:45
First Timothy 4.0 is very interesting.
11:48
It calls God the Savior of all people, and especially of those
11:52
who believe. Savior of all, but especially
11:55
believers. How do they unpack that?
11:56
They interpret it to mean God provides a general saving
11:59
potential for all through the Atonement.
12:01
He's the Savior of all in that sense, making salvation
12:04
available. But He's the special, actual,
12:07
effective Savior only for those who exercise faith.
12:10
The especially doesn't cancel the all.
12:12
It specifies how the salvation becomes actual for believers.
12:15
OK, that's a specific interpretation.
12:17
Then you have Hebrews 2.9 which says Jesus tasted death for
12:21
everyone. Pretty straightforward.
12:23
And 1st John has some very strong statements.
12:25
First, John 2.2 says Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our
12:28
sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole
12:32
world. Not only for ours, but also for
12:34
the whole world. That seems very explicit.
12:36
It does. It draws a clear distinction
12:38
between our sins, believers and the sins of the whole world.
12:42
And 1st John 4.13 calls Jesus the Savior of the world.
12:46
Again, broad universal language. What about Old Testament
12:49
prophecies? Isaiah 53.6 is often we all,
12:53
like sheep, have gone astray, and the Lord has laid on him the
12:56
iniquity of us all. The argument is the US all whose
13:00
iniquity he bore must be the same group as the we all who
13:03
went astray, which is all humanity.
13:05
The universality of sin mirrors the universality of the
13:08
atonement laid upon him. So the scope of the problem
13:10
matches the scope of the solution.
13:12
That's the idea and one more First Timothy 2.6 says Christ
13:16
gave himself as a ransom for all people.
13:18
Some see this as a deliberate clarification or expansion of
13:21
the ransom for many in the Gospels, emphasizing its
13:24
universal availability. Now, another angle Universal
13:27
Atoma proponents bring up involves passages suggesting
13:30
that some people for whom Christ did die might actually end up
13:33
perishing. This seems to contradict the
13:35
particularist idea that his death guarantees salvation for
13:39
everyone. It covers How do these texts
13:42
work in the universalist argument.
13:44
Right. This is a critical line of
13:45
reasoning for them. It suggests the group for whom
13:48
Christ died even identical to the group who are finally saved.
13:52
For example, Romans 14.15 warns believers not to, by their
13:56
actions concerning food, destroy someone for whom Christ died.
14:00
Implying someone Christ died for it could be destroyed.
14:02
Yes, or at least spiritually harmed to the point of potential
14:05
ruin. Similarly, First Corinthians
14:07
8.11 speaks of the danger of causing a weak brother or sister
14:11
for whom Christ died to stumble and be destroyed.
14:14
Again, someone Christ died for is potentially perishing.
14:18
Then there's Hebrews 10.29, which talks about people facing
14:21
severe punishment after having treated as an unholy thing the
14:25
blood of the covenant that sanctified them.
14:28
While sanctified is debated, some universalists see this is
14:31
referring to people who had an initial connection to Christ
14:34
saving work, but fell away. But the clearest 1 might be.
14:37
Probably like Peter 2.1, it describes false teachers who
14:42
will arise, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them,
14:45
bringing swift destruction on themselves.
14:48
Who want them? That sounds like redemption
14:49
language. It certainly does.
14:51
The Greek word agrazu is often used for purchasing slaves in
14:54
the marketplace, a common metaphor for redemption.
14:57
So Peter seems to say these false teachers who are headed
15:00
for destruction were nonetheless bought by the Lord.
15:03
So Christ died for them. Pay their price, yet they
15:05
perish. That's the straightforward
15:07
reading, according to universal atonement proponents.
15:10
Taken together, these passages strongly suggest that Christ's
15:13
death provided a redemption or covering for people who
15:16
ultimately do not receive final salvation.
15:19
This supports the idea that the atonement made salvation
15:22
possible for them, but its effect wasn't automatic or
15:25
irresistible. OK, that connects to another
15:27
major point for universal atonement, the call to preach
15:30
the gospel universally. If Christ only died for the
15:33
elect, how can we genuinely offer the gospel to everyone?
15:37
What are the ministry implications here?
15:39
This is often seen as a very practical and compelling
15:42
argument. The Bible is full of commands
15:44
and examples of universal Gospel proclamation.
15:47
Think of the Great Commission in Matthew 28.19.
15:50
Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations.
15:52
All nations, not just some specific people.
15:54
Group right or Matthew 24.1 Time the gospel preached in the whole
15:58
world as a testimony to all nations Acts 1.8.
16:00
Witnesses to the ends of the earth Acts 17.30.
16:04
God commands all people everywhere to repent.
16:06
Titus 2.11 The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation
16:10
to all people. The scope seems consistently
16:12
universal in these commands. It does, and the question
16:15
Universal Atonement advocates raises this If Christ didn't
16:19
actually die for everyone, how can God genuinely and sincerely
16:22
offer salvation to everyone? How can he command all people to
16:26
repent and believe if he hasn't actually provided the basis for
16:30
all people to be saved upon repenting and believing?
16:33
It would seem insincere. That's the charge, they argue.
16:36
It would make God seem dishonest, offering something he
16:39
hasn't actually provided for. Some people think of Jesus's own
16:42
invitations. Come to me all you who are weary
16:45
and burdened. Matthew 11.28 or Peter's
16:48
statement in second Peter 3.9 that God is patient, not wanting
16:52
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
16:54
How can God not want anyone to perish if he didn't provide a
16:58
way for some specific people not to perish?
17:00
Exactly. For universal atonement
17:02
proponents, the universal provision of the cross is what
17:05
makes the universal proclamation of the Gospel sincere,
17:08
authentic, and urgent. We can truly tell anyone Christ
17:11
died for you, because He did. And this ties into that broader
17:14
question of God's love, right? The universal scope of his love.
17:18
How does that fit in? Absolutely, It's perhaps the
17:21
emotional heart of the universal atonement view for many.
17:24
John 3.16 again for God so loved the world that sounds al
17:29
encompassing. Romans 5.8 But God demonstrates
17:32
his own love for us in this While we were still sinners,
17:35
Christ died for us. The US there seems to refer to
17:38
humanity in its sinful state. It doesn't seem limited to just
17:41
elect sinners. Right proponents argue that a
17:44
limited atonement, where God chose not to provide a saving
17:46
death for some, seems difficult to reconcile with these broad
17:49
statements of God's universal love and compassion.
17:52
It would seem to imply God loves some people savingly but not
17:55
others. And does Christ's example fit
17:57
here too? They think so.
17:59
Look at Luke 23.34. Jesus on the cross praying.
18:02
Father forgive them, for they do not know what they're doing.
18:05
He's praying for His crucifiers, many of whom presumably never
18:08
believed. If God commands us to love our
18:11
enemies, wouldn't His ultimate act of love, the atonement,
18:14
extend even to his enemies? Universalist see the cross as
18:18
the ultimate proof of God's love for all, making salvation
18:21
available to anyone who will receive it.
18:23
OK, that's a lot of strong scriptural and theological
18:26
backing for universal atonement. But there's a common objection,
18:30
often called the universal salvation trap.
18:33
If Christ really died for everyone, doesn't that logically
18:35
mean everyone will be saved? And that's universalism, which
18:39
most Christians reject. How do they avoid that
18:41
conclusion? That's a critical distinction
18:43
they are very careful to make. They strongly differentiate
18:46
between the provision of salvation and the application or
18:48
reception of salvation. To unpack that provision versus
18:51
application. Christ's death is the objective
18:54
provision. It happened historically on the
18:56
cross. It paid the price, satisfied
18:58
God's justice, remove the legal barrier between God and all
19:02
humanity. It made salvation available to
19:04
all. That's the universal provision.
19:06
Got it, The doors open for everyone.
19:08
Right, but the subjective application requires an
19:11
individual response. A person must repent and place
19:14
their faith in Christ to receive the benefits of that atonement
19:16
personally. Salvation isn't automatic just
19:19
because Christ died for you. It's conditional upon faith.
19:22
So two factors. Christ's work and our response.
19:27
Exactly. They emphasize that inheriting
19:29
eternal life involves both God's objective work in Christ and our
19:33
subjective acceptance through faith.
19:35
So they can affirm that Christ died for all, making salvation
19:38
genuinely available to all, without falling into
19:40
universalism. Because the application still
19:42
depends on individual belief. The offer is universal, but the
19:46
acceptance is particular. All right, we've heard strong
19:49
cases for both particular atonement and universal
19:51
atonement, drawing on Scripture and logic.
19:54
But often in these deep theological discussions, when
19:58
you really scrutinize the arguments, maybe some points
20:01
aren't quite as watertight as they first seem.
20:03
What happens when we start evaluating the arguments on both
20:06
sides more critically? That's a good step.
20:09
No argument is usually perfect. For instance, on the universal
20:12
atonement side, while versus using world or all are powerful,
20:17
context is still key. Sometimes all might mean all
20:21
kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles, rather than every
20:24
single individual. Like we saw with Romans 8.32
20:27
maybe? Potentially, yeah.
20:29
Or sometimes world might refer to the non Jewish world or the
20:32
fallen system. So you can't just assume all
20:35
always means every single person without exception.
20:37
Context matters, OK. What about weaknesses on the
20:40
particular atone inside? Well, their interpretation of
20:43
passages like Christ dying for his church or his sheep doesn't
20:47
automatically exclude others. Saying he died for his sheep
20:50
doesn't logically necessitate he died only for his sheep.
20:53
It highlights a special focus, a guaranteed result for them, but
20:57
doesn't strictly forbid a wider general provision.
21:00
It emphasizes the special relationship without denying a
21:03
broader 1. Exactly, also those passages
21:06
cited about people perishing for whom Christ died like Romans
21:10
14.15 first court 8.111. The interpretation is debatable.
21:14
Does destroy mean eternal damnation or causing someone
21:17
severe spiritual harm or loss of reward?
21:19
It's often ambiguous. Second, Peter 2.1 is stronger,
21:22
but even the meaning of being bought there is discussed
21:24
extensively. So some key proof texts might be
21:27
less definitive than they seem. They can be.
21:30
And the inferential arguments have challenges too.
21:33
The argument from Christ's intercession in John 17.
21:36
Well, is it certain that atonement and intercession must
21:39
have the exact same scope? Christ prayed for his followers
21:43
specific needs based on his accomplished work, but that
21:45
might not cover every aspect of his relationship or potential
21:48
provision for the world. The link isn't necessarily
21:51
ironclad. And the argument from election.
21:54
That one hinges heavily on the logical order of God's decrees.
21:57
Does election come before the decree to provide atonement?
22:00
That order is itself a point of debate even among Calvinists.
22:04
Some, like Augusta Strong, argued the decree to provide
22:07
salvation came first, making it universal in provision.
22:10
Then came the decree to elect individuals to receive it.
22:13
If that order holds, limited atonement can't be simply
22:16
deduced from election. So the historical link isn't
22:18
necessarily a logical lock. Right.
22:21
Even Calvin himself, in his commentaries sometimes seem to
22:24
speak of Christ's benefits being offered more broadly than just
22:27
to the elect, suggesting a distinction in his practical
22:30
application. OK, after assisting through the
22:32
arguments and counter arguments, what points seem to hold the
22:35
most weight? Which parts of the biblical
22:38
witness regarding the extent of the atonement feel most
22:40
compelling or unavoidable? Well, looking at the overall
22:43
evidence, several sources conclude that the universal
22:46
passages are quite strong and frankly difficult to explain
22:49
away convincingly. Texts like First Timothy 4.1
22:53
Euro savior of all people, and especially of those who believe
22:56
that especially really suggests A distinction within a universal
23:00
provision. It implies 2 levels of saving.
23:03
It seems to yes, and 1st John 2.2, not only for ours but also
23:06
for the sins of the whole world, draws such an explicit contrast.
23:10
Plus Isaiah 53.6 linking the all who sinned with all whose
23:15
iniquity he bore. These are hard to narrow down
23:17
without, some argue, straining the text.
23:19
Those universal texts seem quite direct.
23:21
They do, and passages like Tekken Peter 2.1, suggesting
23:25
some bought by Christ still perish, remain significant,
23:28
challenging the idea that the atonement automatically saves
23:31
everyone it covers. While the particular texts, his
23:34
sheep, the church are important, they fit quite comfortably
23:37
within a universal framework. Christ died for all, and this
23:41
death is especially effective for and applied to his chosen
23:45
people. The universal view seems to many
23:48
to account for more of the data with less interpretive
23:51
difficulty. It sounds like the real sticking
23:53
point isn't so much the value of Christ's death, but its
23:56
efficacy, how it actually works to save people.
23:59
Is that the fundamental disagreement underneath it all?
24:02
That really is the heart of it. The limited atonement view tends
24:05
to assume that if Christ died for someone, his death
24:08
accomplishes their salvation. It's inherently effective for
24:10
that person. Therefore, if he died or fall,
24:13
all must be saved, leading to that universalism problem they
24:15
want to avoid. So for them provision and
24:17
application are tightly linked, almost the same thing.
24:20
Often, yes. Some proponents, like John
24:23
Murray, essentially collapse the application of redemption, faith
24:26
regeneration into the accomplishment of redemption on
24:29
the cross. The Atonement itself secures
24:31
faith for the elect. Whereas the unlimited view
24:35
separates those. Correct.
24:37
It clearly distinguishes the objective provision, Christ's
24:40
death making salvation possible for all, from the subject of
24:43
application, individual faith, making salvation actual for the
24:46
believer. This separation allows Christ to
24:49
have died for everyone, offering a genuine possibility of
24:52
salvation without guaranteeing that everyone will accept it.
24:55
It preserves both God's universal offer and human
24:57
responsibility to respond. Given these deep differences,
25:00
but also the strengths on both sides, has theology found a way
25:04
to synthesize these ideas? You mentioned a historical
25:06
formula sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect.
25:10
How does that try to bridge the gap?
25:12
Yes, that formula has a long history going back centuries.
25:15
Peter Lombard maybe echoes and prosper of Aquitaine, and it
25:18
reflects how many Reformed thinkers, possibly including
25:21
Calvin, implicitly navigated this.
25:23
It tries to honor the truths emphasized by both sides.
25:27
OK, break it down. Sufficient for all.
25:29
This part affirms the universal value and potential of Christ's
25:33
death. It has infinite worth.
25:36
It is genuinely enough to cover the sins of every single person.
25:40
There's no lack in its power or merit.
25:42
It reflects God's boundless love and the adequacy of the
25:45
sacrifice. So in its sufficiency, it's
25:48
universal. So it honors the universal
25:50
passages and God's love for the. World exactly, but then the
25:53
second part efficient only for the elect.
25:57
Efficient meaning effective. Right.
25:59
While sufficient for all its actual saving effect, its
26:02
efficacy is applied specifically and intentionally only to those
26:06
God has chosen the elect for them.
26:08
Christ's death didn't just make salvation possible, it secured
26:11
it. It purchased everything
26:13
necessary for their salvation, including the gift of faith and
26:16
regeneration. So it honors the particular
26:18
passages and God's sovereignty and salvation.
26:21
Precisely. It holds both truths in tension.
26:24
Christ's death is universally valuable and available,
26:27
underpinning the genuine free offer of the gospel to all.
26:31
But it is particularly effective and applied by the Holy Spirit
26:34
only to the elect, ensuring their salvation according to
26:36
God's sovereign plan. And some phrase it as Jesus died
26:40
for all people, but not for all people in the same way.
26:43
Yes, that's a more contemporary way.
26:45
Some Calvinists express a similar idea.
26:47
It suggests a general universal benefit of the atonement for
26:50
all, perhaps common grace delaying judgment, providing the
26:53
basis for the offer, but a specific saving substitutionary
26:57
benefit only for the elect. And this often ties back to that
27:00
idea of the logical order of God's decrees.
27:03
Often, yes. If you see God's decree to
27:05
provide redemption as logically a prior to His decree to elect,
27:08
then the provision atonement is universal in intent and the
27:11
election determines its specific application.
27:14
It's a way to structure God's plan that upholds both his
27:16
universal love and his particular election.
27:19
OK, that gives us a really solid framework for thinking about for
27:22
whom did Christ die? Now let's pivot to that second
27:25
big question for What did Christ atone?
27:28
What exactly did his death accomplish?
27:30
What's the traditional understanding of the scope of
27:33
its effects? Traditionally, the primary focus
27:35
has always been on sin. Christ's death atoned for sin,
27:39
meaning it dealt with the Gilk, the penalty, and the separation
27:42
caused by human sin. So removing the negative
27:45
consequences of sin. Primarily, yes.
27:48
The main results for believers flowing directly from this are
27:51
forgiveness of sins, the wiping away of our debt before God,
27:55
redemption, being bought back from slavery to sin, and
27:58
reconciliation, the restoration of our broken relationship with
28:01
God. It's fundamentally about fixing
28:03
our spiritual alienation, but as we.
28:04
Touched on the 20th century saw a growing emphasis on something
28:07
else potentially included in the atonement, physical healing.
28:11
Where did this perspective gain traction?
28:14
This became particularly prominent in Pentecostal, Neo
28:18
Pentecostal or Charismatic and related 3rd wave movements.
28:22
These traditions place a strong emphasis on the present day
28:25
reality of spiritual gifts, including miracles of healing.
28:29
And how do they connect healing to the Atonement?
28:31
Leaders like AB Simpson, even before The Maine Pentecostal
28:35
wave, argued forcefully that physical healing is just as much
28:38
a part of the Atonement as forgiveness of sins.
28:41
The idea is that Christ on the cross bore not only our sins,
28:45
but also our sicknesses and diseases.
28:48
So just as we can claim forgiveness by faith because of
28:51
the cross, they argue, we can claim physical healing.
28:53
That's the core assertion, yes. Healing becomes a redemption,
28:56
right? Something provided for and
28:58
secured in Christ's atoning work.
29:01
What's the theological reasoning behind linking sickness directly
29:05
to the atonement? It generally starts with the
29:07
fall. They argue that sickness and
29:08
disease entered the world as a direct consequence of Adam and
29:11
Eve sin, part of the curse on humanity.
29:13
So sickness has a spiritual origin in sin.
29:16
Right. And if sickness ultimately stems
29:19
from sin in the fall, then the remedy for sin, Christ's
29:22
atonement, must also be the remedy for sickness.
29:24
It's seen as part of the same package deal reversing the
29:27
curse. Christ came to undo the works of
29:30
the devil, and sickness is seen as one of those works.
29:33
So combating sickness requires the same spiritual weapon that
29:36
combats in the cross. That's the logic.
29:39
Therefore, physical healing isn't just a nice bonus, it's
29:42
part of the purchased redemption.
29:44
And where do they find biblical support for Christ bearing
29:47
sicknesses on the cross? The key text almost universally
29:50
sighted is Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 53 in
29:54
Matthew 8.17, after Jesus performs many healings, Matthew
29:58
writes this was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet
30:01
Isaiah. He took up our infirmities and
30:03
carried our diseases. Connecting Jesus's healing
30:06
ministry directly to Isaiah 53. Exactly.
30:09
They then linked this Isaiah 53.4.
30:11
He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases directly
30:14
with the next verse Isaiah 53.5. But he was pierced for our
30:17
transgressions by his wounds. We are healed.
30:21
So if there's 5 is clearly about atonement for sin, and Matthew
30:24
connects verse 4 to Jesus's work, they argue both sin and
30:27
sickness were dealt with substitutionarily on the cross.
30:30
That's the connection they make. The healing in Isaiah 53.5 is
30:34
often interpreted to include physical healing based on verse
30:38
4 being about infirmities and diseases.
30:40
OK, that's the argument, but like before, there are counter
30:44
arguments and different ways to interpret these passages.
30:47
What are the main critiques or alternative views on whether
30:50
physical healing is a tone for in the same way sin is?
30:54
Right. Many theologians offer
30:55
significant pushback or nuance here.
30:57
First, the direct link between every instance of sickness and
31:01
specific individual sin is challenged.
31:03
While the fall brought sickness into the world generally, Jesus
31:06
himself didn't always make that connection.
31:08
You mentioned John 9 earlier. Exactly.
31:10
The man born blind, Jesus explicitly says in John 9.3.
31:14
Neither this man nor his parents sinned to cause the blindness,
31:18
but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed
31:20
in him. Sickness isn't always direct
31:23
retribution for personal sin. So if sickness isn't always tied
31:26
to specific sin, maybe it's remedy isn't always tied
31:29
directly to the atonement for sin.
31:31
That's part of the counter argument.
31:33
Second, Jesus didn't always link his physical healings directly
31:36
to forgiveness of sins. Sometimes he did, like with the
31:39
paralytic, your sins are forgiven, then get up and walk.
31:42
But often he just healed without mentioning sin, the connection.
31:45
Wasn't automatic in his ministry.
31:47
It seems not. Also, faith for healing could
31:49
sometimes be exercised by a third party, the centurion for
31:53
his servant, the sire, Phoenician woman for her
31:55
daughter. Faith for forgiveness, however,
31:57
is always personal. This difference suggests healing
32:00
might operate under slightly different principles than
32:02
forgiveness secured in the Atonement.
32:04
Interesting distinction. What about the interpretation of
32:07
Isaiah 53.4 and Matthew 8.1 scene itself?
32:10
This is crucial. A closer look at the Hebrew
32:13
verbs in Isaiah 53.4 NASA to lift, take sable to carry bear,
32:18
and the Greek verbs in Matthew 8.1 scene lambano to take
32:22
bastazu to bear. Carry is important.
32:25
While these verbs can imply substitutionary bearing in some
32:28
contexts, they don't inherently mean that.
32:30
So what else could they mean? They can simply mean to take
32:33
away or to bear sympathetically. Think of Galatians 6.2.
32:38
Bear one another's burdens. We don't atone for each other.
32:41
We sympathize and help carry the load.
32:43
Many scholars argue that Isaiah 53.4 and Matthew 8.17 refer to
32:48
Christ sympathetically, bearing our weaknesses and sorrows by
32:51
entering into our human condition through the
32:53
incarnation. So.
32:54
He took them up by experiencing human life alongside us.
32:57
Yes, by becoming human he experienced the frailties,
33:00
sorrows, and sufferings of human existence, and his healings were
33:04
acts of compassion stemming from that shared experience.
33:07
This wasn't necessarily the atoning act on the cross itself
33:10
bearing sickness substitutionarily.
33:12
And that fits better with Matthew quoting Isaiah before
33:15
the crucifixion. Exactly.
33:16
Matthew applies Isaiah 53.4 to Jesus's healing ministry during
33:20
his life before the cross. If the verse was strictly about
33:23
the atonement, Matthew's timing seems off.
33:26
But if it's about Jesus sympathetically bearing our woes
33:29
through his Incarnate ministry, the timing makes perfect sense.
33:32
OK, Is there other scriptural evidence to differentiate the
33:35
bearing of sin from the bearing of sickness?
33:37
Yes. Proponents of this view point to
33:39
first Peter 2.24. It says He himself bore our sins
33:43
in his body on the cross. Here Peter uses the specific
33:47
word for sins, hamartia, and a Greek verb anifer that strongly
33:52
implies substitutionary sacrificial bearing, like
33:55
carrying a sacrifice up to the altar.
33:57
So Peter uses specific substitutionary language for
34:00
sins, but Matthew didn't necessarily use that same kind
34:03
of language when quoting Isaiah about sicknesses.
34:05
Precisely. Peter seems to be referencing
34:07
the parts of Isaiah 53 explicitly about bearing sin,
34:11
like verse 12, not necessarily importing verse 4 as language
34:14
about sickness into the substitutionary atonement
34:17
itself. The language used for sin
34:19
bearing seems more specific and sacrificial.
34:21
So pulling this all together, what's the conclusion on the
34:24
relationship between atonement and healing?
34:26
From this perspective, how should we understand Christ's
34:28
work regarding our physical bodies?
34:30
The conclusion generally reached is that while Christ absolutely
34:33
did heal, and God certainly still heals today through
34:36
various means, this healing isn't best understood as a
34:39
direct application of a vicarious substitutionary
34:43
bearing of our sicknesses on the cross in the same way He bore
34:46
our sins. So healing is real, but not
34:49
technically part of the substitutionary atonement
34:51
itself. Right.
34:52
His healing miracles are seen more as powerful demonstrations
34:55
of God's Kingdom breaking into the fallen world, acts of divine
34:58
compassion, and signs pointing towards the ultimate restoration
35:02
He will bring. They are introductions of
35:04
supernatural power like any other miracle but.
35:06
Doesn't the atonement deal with all the effects of the fall
35:09
eventually? Yes, in a general sense the
35:11
atonement secured the ultimate defeat of sin, death and all
35:14
consequences of the fall. But, and this is key, not all
35:17
the benefits are fully realized now.
35:19
Full physical redemption, glorified bodies free from decay
35:23
and death is something we are rate at the resurrection at the
35:26
end of time. Romans 8.1925 talks about this
35:30
groaning of creation and our bodies waiting for final
35:33
redemption. So we don't get the full package
35:35
immediately upon believing. Full physical package, No.
35:39
Forgiveness of sins is immediate and complete for the believer,
35:43
but guaranteed physical health in every instance is not.
35:46
That's why we cannot expect that in every case, healing is to be
35:50
granted upon request, as is forgiveness of sins.
35:53
It's not always God's plan to heal in this life.
35:56
Apparently not. As Hebrews 9.27 reminds us, we
35:59
are appointed to die once. We aren't meant to live forever
36:02
in these current bodies. Paul's own thorn in the flesh in
36:05
2nd Corinthians 12 as a prime example.
36:08
He prayed for its removal, but God's answer was sufficient
36:11
grace, not necessarily physical healing.
36:13
Sometimes God has other purposes and allowing suffering or
36:16
illness. Wow.
36:17
This has been incredibly helpful, really digging into the
36:20
nuances. We've covered a lot of ground on
36:21
Christ's atonement, tackling those two huge questions For
36:24
whom did Christ die? And for what did Christ atone?
36:28
They're definitely central question.
36:29
For the for whom question exploring particular and
36:32
universal atonement, that synthesis sufficient for all,
36:36
efficient only for the elect, seems like a helpful way to hold
36:39
the biblical tensions. It acknowledges the infinite
36:42
value and universal sufficiency of Christ's death.
36:44
We're selecting God's love and the genuine offer to all.
36:47
While also affirming God's sovereign purpose in effectively
36:51
applying that salvation only to His chosen people, guaranteeing
36:55
their faith. Honoring his specific saving
36:58
intention for the elect. And then for the for what
37:00
question the scope we landed on the understanding that Christ's
37:04
atonement primarily and substitutionarily bore our sins,
37:07
providing forgiveness and reconciliation.
37:09
That's the core. While physical healing, though a
37:11
very real and gracious act of God demonstrating his power and
37:14
compassion, isn't typically seen as part of that same
37:17
substitutionary bearing. It's more a miracle and a
37:20
foretaste of the future. Full redemption.
37:23
Exactly. Spiritual forgiveness is applied
37:25
fully now. Complete physical restoration
37:27
comes later. So as we finish up this deep
37:30
dive, here's maybe a thought for you, our listeners, to take away
37:33
and reflect on if Christ's Atonement is truly sufficient
37:37
for all, making salvation genuinely available to every
37:41
single person, Yet it's saving power is specifically and
37:44
effectively applied only to the elect according to God's
37:48
sovereign plan. How does holding both those
37:51
truths together shape the way you think about sharing the Good
37:55
News? Does it give you confidence to
37:57
proclaim the gospel freely and passionately to absolutely
38:00
everyone, knowing the provision is there for them, while
38:03
trusting holy in God's sovereign work to draw His chosen people
38:07
to Himself through that proclamation?
38:09
How does that universal sufficiency fuel your particular
38:12
evangelistic fervor? That's a great question to
38:14
wrestle with. Well, thank you so much for
38:16
joining us for another deep dive here on Reformed thinking.
38:19
We really hope this exploration of the Atonement has been
38:21
clarifying and encouraging. Hope it's giving you much to
38:23
consider. Definitely keep reflecting on
38:25
these foundational truths about the cross of Christ and what it
38:29
means for your life. Until next time, may you
38:31
continue growing grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and
38:34
Savior Jesus Christ.