Contend Earnestly: Atonement Debate
Seth McBee at Contend Earnestly has recently (or at least openly declared) his rejection of what is normally called "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption". His intent is to have an online debate, an intramural debate amongst Reformed folks. It should be interesting, but difficult on his part, as the position he defends in my opinion flies in the face of what people who are Reformed have held to. The argument is that God elected only specific people to be saved, but His Son died for everyone. Good luck with that! Seth is a good guy, a brother in Christ but he has a tough task ahead of him.
If indeed the elect are all foreknown, predestined then it has to be assumed that no one who is going to be saved would be unknown to Christ when He walked the road to Calvary. When they drove the nails into His hands, He was not uncertain of whom He was dying for. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep, and by implication only those who are His sheep. He died to make propitiation for His elect, but why would He make that propitiatory sacrifice for someone who never would believe and never be saved? It just doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a Sovereign Lord that elects a remnant of sinners to be saved. Not to put too much
Perhaps I am oversimplifying this but I can't see how Seth can make this stick...should be interesting.
4 comments:
Hey brother...
Saw that you linked to me and haven't had the chance to talk to you in a while...hopefully God's grace is falling on you immensely.
As far as the debate is concerned...I am not rejecting limited or particular atonement/expiation. What I am affirming is this:
Jesus Christ paid for all man's sins, especially the elect. It is really the belief in unlimited/limited expiation. So, there is no rejection on my part, just an affirmation of the death for all.
Just to give you a taste, this is actually very historical as far as Calvinism is concerned and not something that I, or my cohorts, are dreaming up...
Here is a teaser as far as how Calvin saw it:
“And God.” Hereby it appeareth more plainly to what end he made mention of ignorance; for when he telleth them that God hath accomplished those things which he had foretold, he doth so touch their offense in the death of Christ, that it turneth to their salvation. Ignorance, saith he, hath made you guilty, yet God hath brought that to pass which he had determined, that Christ should redeem you by his death. This is a most notable consideration, when as we ponder and consider with ourselves, that through the wonderful counsel of God our evils are turned to another end to us, yet this doth no whir excuse us, for so much as in us lieth we cast away ourselves by sinning; but that conversion whereof I have spoken is a notable work of God´s mercy, whereof we must speak, and which we must extol with humility. The Jews did what they could to extinguish all hope of life in the person of Christ; and yet, nevertheless, that death gave life as well to them as to the whole world. We must also remember that which we saw elsewhere, lest there should any false and absurd opinion creep in, that Christ was laid open to the lust of the wicked, that God is made the chief author by whose will his only Son did suffer. Calvin, Commentary, Acts 3:18.
HT: Theology Online
Hope all is well...and hopefully we'll see you engage over in our debate as well.
Soli Deo Gloria
I guess I am missing/not understanding the distinction there, but I imagine it will be explained in more detail. Looking forward to reading and engaging in the debate!
(I guess I should read The death of death before the debate starts!)
Haven't seen you at the debate yet...just seeing if you have gotten a chance to take a look at the different perspectives being put forth...
Have a great weekend.
I didn't realize it had started, I will be stopping over post haste!
Post a Comment