One for All, or All for Naught? Limited Atonement

Reposted, with permission, from The Cripplegate.

The next installment of our Reformation Month TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L. If you missed the previous installments – you can see Total Depravity here and Unconditional Election here.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issue is usually phrased this way: “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? If option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see why even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.

Put another way, “Did Jesus die to potentially save everyone or did He die to actually save those who would believe?”

John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those He chose to save. His sparring partner Jacobus Arminius said Christ’s death potentially provides salvation for everyone, but not effectually for anyone. If you were to illustrate this on a napkin for someone you might try this…

  • CALVINISTS say: Salvation is a NARROW bridge to Heaven that gets only the elect there.
  • ARMINIANS say: Salvation is a WIDE bridge with everyone on it, but it goes only half way.

Substitutionary atonement refers to when the innocent Jesus bore, on the cross, the punishment for guilty sinners. The question is which guilty sinners? If it’s all sinners, then clearly His payment wasn’t sufficient to get them all to Heaven.

If you get caught speeding and get a $100 fine, and someone pays it for you, the check atones for your fine. But how was that fine paid? Was $100 trillion paid into an account and everyone in the world receives a check covering all their speeding fines, but it’s up to each person to cash their check? Or did the fines actually get paid in full for some, so that they are now pardoned, with nothing left for them to do themselves?

Arminius taught that Jesus did not actually pay for anyone’s sins and His death didn’t save anyone. The atonement merely provided the potential for people to be saved, if they choose God. i.e. Jesus picked the lock of the door to Heaven, but He left it up to us to squeeze in. Am I oversimplifying their view? You judge…

Dr J. K. Grider, President of the seminary of the Church of the Nazarene:

Many… say Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet….Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty for sin, since then no one then would ever go to [Hell].

That is to say, Arminians do not believe Jesus’ death paid for your sins. He did not purchase you with His blood. Believer, let that sink in.Arminians say that what Jesus did purchase for you was the permission for you to be saved, but you have got to get cracking on your salvation, as it is in part up to you to get saved and stay saved.

Don’t be put off by the term ‘Limited Atonement.’ Everyone limits the atonement (except Universalists who say everyone goes to Heaven no matter what.) Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement (it covers only the elect). Arminians limit the power of the atonement, saying it extends to the whole world but is not powerful enough to effectively save anyone.

As usual, the only test is: what does the Bible say?

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. … [They react by calling him demon possessed, then...] …25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:11-27)

[S]ince you have given him [God’s Son] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him….6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. … 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me (John 17:2)

So, what did Jesus accomplish on the cross? A potential salvation for all, or an actual salvation for those who believe?

[H]e entered once for all into the holy places, … by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. [Not merely “making it possible”]. (Heb. 8:12)

Christ’s death secured redemption for some… “securing an eternal redemption.”

Why did Jesus die? He died to bring us to God – not just to make it possible for us to get to God.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit (1 Pet. 3:18)

But let’s see the other side of the coin…

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Tim. 2:3)

So, does God want all people to be saved? Yes. Does God love the whole world and everyone in it? Yes. Does everyone believe and get saved and go to heaven? No.

So, are you telling me God doesn’t always get what He wants? …Yes, I am.

This is a mistake people make when they say, “I don’t believe in God because if there is a God why is there evil in the world, and hurricanes, and deformed babies, and murders?” They are assuming God always gets what He wants in this world.

Well, doesn’t He? He is God!

Let me ask you this: God wants you to love your wife, obey your parents, stop your lust, and greed. He wants you to be content with your wages, never worry, and give sacrificially to the ministry. Does God always, consistently, get exactly what He wants from you? Sadly, no, not from me either.

There is a difference between God’s prescriptive will (what He declares He wants) and God’s decreed will (what He wills to happen), a difference between what He desires and what He ordains will happen. (For a clear explanation, here is an article by John Piper, “Are there two wills in God?”)

So how can we say that Jesus died for the whole world and at the same time say that Jesus only died for the elect? The answer lies in this verse:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)

I had trouble with this doctrine too at first. My understanding was “limited.” But then I realized how love works in my life. I love every person in my flock. But I love my wife differently. I love my neighbor as myself. I love my church, my friends, and hopefully, even my enemies. I love my wife and sons and daughters. But not all in the same way.

And my love for my wife finds expression in ways that my love for my church will not, romantic expression, for example. In a similar way we can say that Jesus loves the world. He loves His enemies. But He loves His followers, His flock, His believers in a unique way.

So 1 Timothy 4:10 is the verse that reconciles the tensions. He is the Savior of all – but in a special way for believers. He accomplished something on the cross that extends to everybody, but He accomplished something in a very special way for the specific group of people He laid His life down for. The word “especially” [malista in Greek] denotes a favored subset within the whole. (Honor your elders, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; provide for your relatives, especially those in your own household, to borrow two examples from the same epistle).

That is what Calvinists believe: God loves the world, anything we get in this life is a grace from God that we don’t deserve, and unbelievers get this too – health, family, enjoyment of sport and work – and they get this because Jesus bought it on the cross. But for unbelievers, this common grace ends at death. But God has a special relationship with His chosen ones that includes something unique to them, namely salvation, special grace for this life and the next.

Most people who reject this doctrine do so because they don’t understand it. They think we are saying Christ’s blood wasn’t enough for the whole world. But that is not what most Calvinists have taught over the centuries. I concur with David Steele, who explains,

Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience, nor any greater suffering to save [everyone].

That is to say that if one additional person asked to be saved, Christ would not need to have spent an additional second on the cross or sustained one more lash. His suffering and death were infinite and able to save an infinite number of souls. That is why anyone at any time can repent, believe, and be saved.

That is why “We proclaim Him, warning everyone and teachig everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col. 1:28).

So, it may sound like Calvinists would preach to fewer people because they don’t believe everyone goes to heaven. That just isn’t true. No one knows who will believe. And God ordains the means to save people—preaching, and then He commands us to preach to every person or die trying.

But when someone believes, who gets the credit? Us, for our missionary endeavors? No, Jesus the Savior because it was His work that accomplished the salvation; all we did was deliver the good news.

So the question for you today is – how do you know if you are one that Christ died for? To quote Spurgeon

Will you answer me a question or two and I will tell you whether He died for you. Do you want a Savior? Do you feel that you need a Savior? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you, and you will be saved.

And that is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Please be gentle in the comments section – I only wrote this for those who believe in it. (Get it?)


Dr. Clint Archer (MDiv, ThM, DMin) is the senior pastor of Hillcrest Baptist Church in Durban, South Africa (since 2005). He has written several books, including The Preacher’s Payday, A Visitor’s Guide to Hell, The Home Team, and Holding the Rope. You can follow him on twitter @ClintArcher

Clint Archer bio


Clint has been the pastor of Hillcrest Baptist Church since 2005. He lives in Durban, South Africa with his wife and four kids.

400 reads
4668 reads

There are 21 Comments

Paul Henebury's picture

Okay, I'll be the first to take the plunge.  

This is a poor article.  I've read much better articulations of limited atonement.  All arguments for the doctrine are based on the position that the accomplishment of the atonement and the application of its merits are coordinate - usually in time (at the Cross).  To prove that scripturally is a very tall order, and so recourse is taken to deductive reasoning.  Exegesis is pretty much absent.  The author's treatment of 1 Tim. 4:10 is horrid. Exposition is replaced by poor analogies and deductions from premises which themselves need scriptural backing.    

But there is no logical reason NOT to view the Cross as a universal atonement a la John 3:16-17; Heb. 2:9; 1 John 2:2, 4:14 etc., once the efficacy of it is restricted to its application in time. LA depends on the logic of Christ’s atonement actually bought the elect at the Cross. It did not render men savable, it really saved them. Ever heard that? Well, what I am saying is that the application happens only once the individual has exercised faith (cf. Gal. 3:2), and that did not occur at the Cross. Hence the Cross did NOT actually save anyone, it’s merits only save sinners in the application, it is there where we must argue for limitation.

A side point: the writer quips, "John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those He chose to save."

And just where does he do that?  No source is given.  But anyone can read Calvin on the "universalistic" verses and discover that he did not hold to particular redemption.  In his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, he rejected the common Calvinistic view that “Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect” (which actually originates with Peter Lombard, who rejected LA), as a “great absurdity.” (209).  In the same place Calvin asserts,

It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world (Ibid).

I respect good arguments for LA, but its advocates have to do better than this.

 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I still think Chafer's remarks along this line is the stuff I've read. He emphasizes the Holy Spirit, especially in a section entitled "The Cross Not the Only Saving Instrumentality." I'm at work, and don't have the reference for you, but it's somewhere around 3:190ff in his systematic. His discussion is worth reading.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Jay's picture

If someone wants to know what Arminianism's view of Limited Atonement is, I'd point them to this article that was posted on SharperIron a long time ago.  It was written by Dan Chapa, whom if I remember correctly, is affiliated with the Society of Evangelical Arminians.

Unlimited Atonement

Christ died for everyone. This is not universalism; the benefits of Christ’s death are conditionally applied, not automatically or necessarily applied. Just as the Passover Lamb was slain and the blood applied, so also we distinguish between Christ’s death and the application of His blood to believers. Christ’s death makes salvation possible for all, and God desires all to believe and be saved through His blood, but only believers are actually cleansed by Christ’s blood.

We see conditionality in the application of Christ’s blood because justification is by faith (Rom. 3:21-26) and because Christ died for some who ultimately perish. Christ said to all the apostles, including Judas, my blood is “shed for you” (Luke 22:21-22). The apostates in Hebrews 10:26-29 were sanctified by Christ’s blood. The false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1 denied the Lord that bought them. 1 John 1:7 and Colossians 1:22-23 plainly teach conditionality in the application of Christ’s blood.

The many passages saying Christ died for the world or all men ground our belief that Christ died for everyone (John 1:29, 3:16-17, 4:42, 6:33, 6:51, 12:47; 1 John 2:1-2, 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:14-19; Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10). While “world” has a broad range of meanings, that range does not include any definition that would avoid the conclusion that Christ died for everyone, nor do we see validity in inventing a specially plead definition of world to avoid unlimited atonement. We see Christ’s sacrifice for all as the foundation of the sincere offer of the gospel to all in that everyone can be saved through what Christ accomplished on the cross.

 

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

wcombs's picture

Paul.

You say: "LA depends on the logic of Christ’s atonement actually bought the elect at the Cross. It did not render men savable, it really saved them. Ever heard that? Well, what I am saying is that the application happens only once the individual has exercised faith (cf. Gal. 3:2), and that did not occur at the Cross. Hence the Cross did NOT actually save anyone, it’s merits only save sinners in the application, it is there where we must argue for limitation."

I am trying to understand your view. Could you explain how you understand propitiation? Whose sins did Christ propitiate at the cross? (Rom 3:25, "whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.") Did he actually propitiate the sins of anyone at the cross?  If not when were the sins of the elect propitiated?

Thanks.

Bill Combs

JohnBrian's picture

Rom 10:14-17 provides the singular process whereby people hear and believe the Gospel, and come to salvation. A preacher is sent to speak of Christ, the listeners hear, they believe, then call on Christ for salvation. The Gospel must be proclaimed for anyone to be able to come to Christ. He does not appear in visions, as some have insisted He does with Muslims (my article here), but only by the Gospel being spoken. In the OT that Gospel was only given to the Jews, with a few specific Gentiles included.

Christ’s death makes salvation possible for all...

But salvation is not available (nor possible) for those who never hear the Gospel.

The Calvinist view it that Christ secured the salvation of some, not all, and that this "some" is "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (Rev 7:9).

It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world (Ibid).

Rev 7:9 affirms that Christ expiates the sins of the whole world, just not every individual in the whole world. 

...because Christ died for some who ultimately perish...

Calvinist's find this notion unbiblical. Why would Christ suffer the wrath of God for those who must also, by their unbelief, suffer the wrath of God. And why would Christ die for those who never hear the Gospel, and thus have no possibility of salvation.

Noah built an ark to save eight souls, plus animals, because God intended to save those and only those. There is no record in Scripture of an opportunity given to others to join Noah and his family on the Ark (my article here). It would have made no sense for God to have Noah build additional accommodations for those God did not intend to save.

God only intended to save Rahab and those in her house when he commanded the Israelites to march around Jericho. There was no opportunity given to the other residents of the city to save them from the destruction.

In Egypt, every firstborn whom God intended to save was saved, by the blood on the doorpost. No warning was given to the Egyptians to put blood on their doors.

Salvation in these events was not intended nor provided for everyone, but for specific individuals. 

...that range does not include any definition that would avoid the conclusion that Christ died for everyone...

This sounds good, but the evidence from the Scripture disputes this notion.

We see Christ’s sacrifice for all as the foundation of the sincere offer of the gospel to all...

The foundation of the offer of the Gospel is the command to "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel" (Mk 16:15). The elect will hear, repent, and believe. The non-elect will reject.

...there is no logical reason NOT to view the Cross as a universal atonement...

There is biblical reason to reject the view that the Cross provides a universal atonement.

The difference between the two views is that Calvinism affirms that God completes the bridge building, while Arminianism affirms that man completes that task.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

JohnBrian's picture

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols4-6/chs181.pdf

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it—we do not! The Arminians say Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say, “No.” You are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish! Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you! You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody! We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death! We say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved! You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

TylerR's picture

Editor

I was correct about 3:193ff in his systematic. Here is a bit more from him about the results of the Holy Spirit's work in calling and convicting sinners:

It is here in the sphere of an effectual call that the divine election is realized. It is not determined on the basis of a theory that there is a selected company for whom Christ alone has died, nor are men saved because of anything good - actual or foreseen - in them (3:223).

Chafer is solidly against Arminian soteriology, as anyone who has read his systematic knows. His section on soteriology is well worth reading and considering.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Paul Henebury's picture

My answer is in the very text you cite.  The propitiation of Christ is accessed "through faith".  God is "just and the justifier of him who believes." (3:26).  Our sins were not "actually propitiated at the Cross" for the reason that, if they were we wouldn't need faith, since God would already have been appeased.  The elect have the the wrath of God turned from off of them when they believe (Rom. 4:15-16).  If this were not so and they were propitiated at the Cross then one faces the danger of pre-temporal justification.  Anyway, that is my brief answer. 

Regards,

 

Paul H 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

wcombs's picture

Paul says;  "Our sins were not 'actually propitiated at the Cross.'"

This would seem to be problematic. If our sins were not propitiated at the cross, then the cross did nothing; it has no real purpose.

I think it is more scriptural to say that my sins, Bill Combs's sins, were propitiated at the cross, but the benefits of that propitiation were not applied to me until I received Christ. The atonement was accomplished for the elect at the cross, but not applied to them until they believed.

Bill Combs

Paul Henebury's picture

Bill, I absolutely agree with your comment above.  Since you used the word "actually" I took that to mean the application as well as the accomplishment.   

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

wcombs's picture

Okay. If you agree that the sins of the elect were propitiated at the cross, do you also say that the sins of the non-elect were propitiated at the cross?

Bill Combs

Ron Bean's picture

It seems that some believe that God limits the atonement to a particular group while others believe that the atonement was intended for all men but is limited by some men's refusal to accept it. 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Paul Henebury's picture

Well, since belief is needed to access propitiation, and the application of redemption, and hence propitiation hinges on faith then the answer is "No" - IF you have application in mind.  If you have accomplishment in mind the answer is "Yes."  (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10).     

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

TOvermiller's picture

Paul Hartog, in his extended article, published by RBP in 2009, called Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement, concludes (p. 49) that:

Calvin did at times retain both a universal redemption in some sense along with his resolute stance on particular election. It further seems that Calvin maintained God’s sovereign use of the universal call (with a coordinate universal provision in some sense) in his particular and efficacious application of salvation.

Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | www.studygodsword.com
Blog & Podcast | www.shepherdthoughts.com

wcombs's picture

Paul said: "If you have accomplishment in mind the answer is 'Yes.'"

If Christ accomplished propitiation for the non-elect, that is he suffered the wrath of God for their sins, is there not a problem if they have to also suffer God's wrath for those same sins in hell? Is that not double jeopardy?

Bill Combs

Don Johnson's picture

wcombs wrote:

Paul said: "If you have accomplishment in mind the answer is 'Yes.'"

If Christ accomplished propitiation for the non-elect, that is he suffered the wrath of God for their sins, is there not a problem if they have to also suffer God's wrath for those same sins in hell? Is that not double jeopardy?

first, I am not sure western legal principles apply - all that matters is what God says, not what we think about what God says. So if God is saying that his wrath is poured out on his son and on unbelievers, it matters not if we think that is double jeopardy.

however, the mistake in your thinking, in my opinion, is to quantify the death of Christ as a specified "amount" of suffering God's wrath such that it equals that which the redeemed would have deserved. If such a limitation were true, what exactly more would Jesus have had to suffer if he would have decided to suffer for any of those who are not redeemed?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

BrandonC's picture

Dr. Henebury, I have been itching to ask you for some time if you have read Dr. Allen's recent work on "The Extent of the Atonement." He analyzes the question in categories similar to yours, drawing distinctions between the "intent," "extent," and "application" of the atonement to work through the teaching of various texts. The distinctions you made above between "accomplishment" and "application" seem to be pointed in this same direction. Dr. Bauder has used the terminology of "provision" rather than "accomplishment" paired with "application". Perhaps both these words are providing nuance to the distinction between "intent" and "extent"? 

[i]Working to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of the faith of those to whom God has called me, that I may rejoice with them in Him - Phil. 2:17[/i] I blog at [url=http://teambrazil.org]

alex o.'s picture

A funny thing happens to some folks when "Election" is mentioned. They immediately start thinking about the human response to the gospel as an "election" of sorts. It almost seems they want to balance things out in their minds.

Saving faith is given and not just a choice to access The Atonement. Jesus is the "Author and perfecter of our faith" therefore it is evident that He also controls the means to salvation. 2Pet. 1.1 has believers "receiving faith." Other verses also explicitly speak of faith as a gift:  For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake ( Phil.1.29 ESV).

Also, our sins were atoned for in some sense at The Judgment in Eden when Adam, Eve, and The Serpent were meted out their punishment. A parable given to The Serpent, a cryptic message: Gen. 3.15. This parable is referenced in Mt. 13.35: I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has been hidden from the foundation of the world (NET). Christ already determined to atone for sins a least by this time. Believers also were in the mind of God at least from the giving of the parable which Mt. 13.35 references. I have a 2 part post about this here: https://beliefspeak2.net/

 

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord.  B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Paul Henebury's picture

wcombs wrote:

You ask,

If Christ accomplished propitiation for the non-elect, that is he suffered the wrath of God for their sins, is there not a problem if they have to also suffer God's wrath for those same sins in hell? Is that not double jeopardy?

I have already stated that our sins were not actually (as in the application) propitiated at the cross, although they were potentially (as in the accomplishment).  Here you seem to assume a commercialistic view, whereby a quantity of sins was appeased at the cross.  But I hold that we ought to think in terms of the sufficiency of appeasement of the requirements of justice, not a drop-for-drop equivalence.  As I see it (and as others have often said), this double-jeopardy issue requires a commercial view of Christ's atonement.  I reject that view, ergo, the problem doesn't arise.  If you can articulate double-jeopardy without quantitative language I would be interested to read it. 

Paul H     

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Paul Henebury's picture

BrandonC wrote:

Dr. Henebury, I have been itching to ask you for some time if you have read Dr. Allen's recent work on "The Extent of the Atonement." He analyzes the question in categories similar to yours, drawing distinctions between the "intent," "extent," and "application" of the atonement to work through the teaching of various texts. The distinctions you made above between "accomplishment" and "application" seem to be pointed in this same direction. Dr. Bauder has used the terminology of "provision" rather than "accomplishment" paired with "application". Perhaps both these words are providing nuance to the distinction between "intent" and "extent"? 

Yes Brandon, I have read (a good deal of) Allen's book.  

Regards,

 

Paul H

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.