Culinary Calvinism: Considering Jay Adams’ TULIPburger

Maybe I’m missing something, but this lengthy answer seems to sidestep the issue. The question of the extent of the atonement is about salvation, not resurrection. Did Christ offer an atoning propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception, or for the sins of the elect? Atonement and propitation are about an acceptable sacrifice for sins. The basic issue is “Whose sins are removed from their record in heaven so that they are spared divine justice.” Applying this to resurrection not only does not offer a third alternative to this age-old question, but tends to confuse the issue.

Being a 4.5ish Calvinist, I have sympathy for the Limited Atonement position as it makes sense logically, but I just haven’t been convinced that the Scriptures actually teach it. Having said that, I have no problem with those who hold to that position.

What I do have a problem with, is people like Jay Adams saying it is the central teaching of Calvinism—the “burger” in the TULIP burger. If you don’t have the burger, you don’t have much of a sandwich, and so I guess if you don’t believe Limited Atonement you don’t have Calvinism?

This to me is just ridiculous, to place that much priority and emphasis on something so unclear in Scripture. I have much more agreement for the sentiments of Wayne Grudem (who is a 5 pointer). [I think I post this just about every time there is a Limited Atonement thread on SI!]

Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important at all. Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion. Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters. In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact that should cause us to be cautious. A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ’s love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God’s people—all of which are negative pastoral considerations. Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all. And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example (Systematic Theology, 603).

[Greg Long]

What I do have a problem with, is people like Jay Adams saying it is the central teaching of Calvinism—the “burger” in the TULIP burger. If you don’t have the burger, you don’t have much of a sandwich, and so I guess if you don’t believe Limited Atonement you don’t have Calvinism?

Tofu, anyone?

I have no other comment to make in this discussion.

Mr. Barkman, I appreciate the interaction. You stated:

[G. N. Barkman]

Maybe I’m missing something, but this lengthy answer seems to sidestep the issue. The question of the extent of the atonement is about salvation, not resurrection. Did Christ offer an atoning propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception, or for the sins of the elect? Atonement and propitation are about an acceptable sacrifice for sins. The basic issue is “Whose sins are removed from their record in heaven so that they are spared divine justice.” Applying this to resurrection not only does not offer a third alternative to this age-old question, but tends to confuse the issue.

From my perspective, you are missing something. The dichotomy you make is the unfortunate result of the theological discussion overshadowing the Bible’s revelation. There is no salvation without resurrection. Resurrection is part of salvation, part of what is needed to handle the effects of sin, and it is one of the chief focal points of the gospel message (especially seen in Acts). My argument is that no resurrection of anyone (believer or unbeliever) would have occurred if Christ had not offered “an atoning propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception.” That is how I believe the Bible has atonement tie to resurrection and thereby achieve ultimate salvation.

I also disagree on what the “basic issue” is, which I would state more like: “What part does atonement have in the process by which God has chosen to handle the various effects of sin on the human race so that He could save those whom He would?” Creation has a part. Incarnation has a part. Grace has a part. Election has a part. Atonement has a part. Faith has a part. Regeneration has a part. Cleansing from sin has a part. Application of righteousness has a part. Adoption has a part. Resurrection has a part. Glorification has a part. Etc. (No need to go on, I think). The ultimate salvation of any person is a process, not a single thing. Atonement plays a role in that process, and is interrelated to other pieces of that process, but atonement does not necessarily have a role that only has a relationship to believers (hence, the age-old debate on the extent of the atonement as to whether it does only have a role for believers or not). So the basic issue is figuring out how atonement fits into the process of salvation. We all agree it is an “atoning propitiation for sins,” but different sides articulate how it fits into that role, and to what extent that role plays for humanity in general versus believers specifically.

To be “spared divine justice” requires dealing, at least, with the first death and the second death in relation to sin, since those are two different points of divine justice. My focus on atonement here (and primarily of my dissertation) has been on what I consider to be the universal aspect (since that is where the atonement debate resides), which is the need for freedom from the first death by the resurrection through the payment of death by Christ. This is a corporate aspect, much like the Day of Atonement sacrifice needed for all Israel once a year. But I do believe there is an individual aspect of the atoning work, only applied to those seeking it, chiefly the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ. This is much like the required individual atonement sacrifices an Israelite who desired to believe and obey God would need to make for their own specific sins—the corporate atonement did not suffice for those. This individual aspect of Christ’s atonement, applied only to believers, solves the sinners need of avoiding the eternal expression of God’s wrath against one who is unworthy, which expression is the second death.

So my answer may not suffice you, but I hope I at least have clarified my position and specifically resurrection/salvation relationship in my viewpoint (and really, not just my view, as I do not know of any Christians that would say they could be considered saved without being freed from their coming physical death, except those that do not believe in a bodily resurrection, which Paul argued so strenuously against in 1 Cor 15).

Scott,

Thanks for the explanation. I’m still not sure I “get it,” but I appreciate what you have said, and I will endeavor to think it through some more. For anyone who is interested in further study, I recommend the classic, “Redemption Accomplished and Applied” by John Murray.

Only have a minute and haven’t organized this info much yet. But for what it’s worth, exerpts from some theologicans on the meaning of “atonement.”

Lexham Bible Dictionary

Atonement. The third ritual effect associated with blood is the making of atonement (e.g., Lev 8:15; 16:16–19). Atonement is a complex theological topic and the exact process and nature of atonement is debated. However, it can be generally understood as a state of restoration or reconciliation. In the Old Testament, atonement is associated with the Hebrew root כפר (kpr), often defined as “cover” (see Rodrigues, “Atonement”). Milgrom points out that while “atone” is a common translation for כפר (kpr), the actual usage of the word reveals a much more complicated range of possible meanings in context, including “wipe,” “remove,” “purify,” “decontaminate,” “cover,” “rub,” and “ransom”; Milgrom prefers to use “purge” in most contexts (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1079–82).^[1]

William Shedd

universalism used in at least two senses: (1) to identify the teaching that everyone ultimately will be saved and (2) in relation to atonement theory, to refer to the teaching that God intends Christ’s atonement to apply to all human beings, its failure to do so being thwarted only by unbelief. In this second sense, the doctrine of universal atonement contrasts with the Reformed (and Shedd’s) position of particular redemption, in which God intends to apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement only to the elect. See also apokatastasis.^[2]

A distinction is made by some theologians between “satisfaction” and “atonement.” Christ’s satisfaction is his fulfilling the law both as precept and penalty. Christ’s atonement, as antithetic to satisfaction, includes only what Christ does to fulfill the law as penalty. According to this distinction, Christ’s atonement would be a part of his satisfaction. The objections to this mode of distinguishing are that (a) satisfaction is better fitted to denote Christ’s piacular work than his whole work of redemption; in theological literature, it is more commonly the synonym of atonement; (b) by this distinction, atonement may be made to rest upon the passive obedience alone to the exclusion of the active. This will depend upon whether “obedience” is employed in the comprehensive sense of including all that Christ underwent in his estate of humiliation, both in obeying and suffering.^[3]

The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided: “All things are now ready.” Therefore the call to “come” is universal. It is plain that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy. The extent to which a medicine is offered is not limited by the number of persons favorably disposed to buy it and use it. Its adaptation to disease is the sole consideration in selling it, and consequently it is offered to everybody.^[4]

Charles Hodge

The word atonement is often used, especially in this country, to designate the priestly work of Christ. This word does not occur in the English version of the New Testament except in Romans 5:11, where it is interchanged with “reconciliation” as the translation of the Greek word καταλλαγή. In the Old Testament it frequently occurs. The objections to its use to express the work of Christ are,—

1. Its ambiguity. To atone is properly to be, or cause to be, at one. It is so used in common language as well as in theology. In this sense to atone is to reconcile; and atonement is reconciliation. It, therefore, expresses the effect, and not the nature of Christ’s work. But it is also, in the second place, used to express that by which the reconciliation is effected. It then means satisfaction, or compensation. It answers in our version to the Hebrew word כִּפֵּר; which in relation to the offence or guilt, means to expiate. Thus in Leviticus 5:16, it is said, if a man commit an offence, הַכּהֵו יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו, the priest shall make atonement for him; i.e., shall expiate, or make satisfaction for his offence.^[5]

When a sovereign pardons a criminal, it is not an act of justice. It is not on the ground of satisfaction to the law. The Bible, therefore, in teaching that justification is on the ground of an atonement or satisfaction; that the sinner’s guilt is expiated; that he is redeemed by the precious blood of Christ; and that judgment is pronounced upon him as righteous, does thereby teach that justification is neither pardon nor infusion of righteousness.^[6]

A. H. Strong

The atonement, like every other doctrine of Christianity, is a fact of life; and such facts of life cannot be crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any definitions that we can frame. We must add to the idea of substitution the idea of sharing. Christ’s doing and suffering is not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; the bearer of our humanity; yes, the very life of the race.^[7]

Note, Strong seems to affirm multiple definitions of atonement simultaneously. This is just one of them:

A work of priestly mediation, which reconciles God to men,—notice here that the term ‘reconciliation’ has its usual sense of removing enmity, not from the offending, but from the offended party; a sin-offering, presented on behalf of transgressors; a propitiation, which satisfies the demands of violated holiness;—and a substitution, of Christ’s obedience and sufferings for ours.—These passages, taken together, show that Christ’s death is demanded by God’s attribute of justice, or holiness, if sinners are to be saved.^[8]

Views of the atonement determine the views on justification, if logical sequence is observed. We have to do here, not with views of natural justice, but with divine methods. If we regard the atonement simply as answering the ends of a governmental scheme, our view must be that justification merely removes an obstacle, and the end of it is only pardon, and not eternal life.”

But upon the true view, that the atonement is a complete satisfaction to the holiness of God, justification embraces not merely pardon, or acquittal from the punishments of law, but also restoration to favor, or the rewards promised to actual obedience. See also Quenstedt, 3:524; Philippi, Active Obedience of Christ; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:432, 433.^[9]

Roland McCune

The atoning life and death of Jesus Christ (i.e., His active and passive obedience in earning the necessary merit/righteousness and paying the penalty for sin required for anyone to be accepted by God) is infinite in its dimension. In the words of R. L. Dabney, “Christ’s atonement surmounts the demerit of all possible sin or ingratitude. His righteousness is a complete price to purchase the sinner’s pardon and acceptance.” Our Lord made a complete payment for sin. In truth, being infinite, it exceeded in its worth all the liability of the sin of all finite rational beings combined. ^[10]

In the words of the title of John Owen’s monumental work, the atonement was “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” and His resurrection singularly demonstrated that fact.^[11]

In Roman Catholicism, remission of the guilt of sin really amounts to the displacement of guilt by the infusion of grace and, hence, its removal or remission. Pardon is a consequence of sanctification and is not a result of the satisfaction of justice. In Romanism there is no real satisfaction of justice, and guilt is more or less ignored rather than actually paid for in an ethical atonement.^[12]

“For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died: and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.”

1) In what sense did “all” die? Is this spiritual death, as in Adam in the Garden? Ans: No. Is this physical death? Ans: No. It is the death of the old man. All for whom Christ died have died to the old self.

2) Who now lives? Ans: All for whom Christ died, who consequently die to the old self and now live for the One who died and rose again on their behalf.

3) Is this true of all men without exception? Ans: No, because not all men die to the old self and henceforth live for Christ.

4) Conclusion: The “all” for whom Christ died are the elect of God, who are raised to newness of life on the basis of Christ’s death and resurrection applied to them.

What did Jesus accomplish when He died for the world? He purchased salvation for every person on the face of the earth. He made it possible to honestly offer that salvation to everyone. I believe it is deceptive to offer it to someone for whom Christ did not die; if that is the case, it is not for him.

If someone rejects that salvation, it is not a failure on God’s part, it’s a failure on man’s part. And, by the way, the Bible never says it would be a failure on God’s part.

I think many who believe in Limited Atonement make this much more difficult than it really is. Simply put, Jesus died for all; but His salvation is only effective for those who place their trust in Him. But, God’s salvation is honestly purchased and available to all.

It makes a big difference to me to honestly look a lost man in the eyes and say Jesus loves you, died for you, and wants to save you. Those who believe in Limited Atonement cannot say that.

For any who want to delve into the depths of Limited Atonement, on both sides, see David Allen’s “The Extent of the Atonement.” He does a masterful job.

David R. Brumbelow

Unless you know who are the elect, it is not possible to knowingly offer Christ to one for whom Christ did not die. In obedience to Christ’s command, good Calvinists preach the same gospel to everyone without exception, and declare the benefits of the gospel freely available to any and all who will believe. Can a universalist do any better than this?

To those who believe in Limited Atonement – the gospel is for some of you, not all of you. The gospel is not even for most of you.

Again, if Jesus did not die for you, you cannot believe. You have nothing to believe in. You have nothing by which to be saved.

David R. Brumbelow

He purchased salvation for every person on the face of the earth. He made it possible to honestly offer that salvation to everyone.

These sentences are not equal. Calvinist’s disagree with the 1st but have no problem following the command to offer salvation to all men everywhere.

I believe it is deceptive to offer it to someone for whom Christ did not die; if that is the case, it is not for him.

If someone rejects that salvation, it is not a failure on God’s part, it’s a failure on man’s part. And, by the way, the Bible never says it would be a failure on God’s part.

Agree.

Simply put, Jesus died for all; but His salvation is only effective for those who place their trust in Him. But, God’s salvation is honestly purchased and available to all.

Disagree, because I do not find that in the Scripture.

It makes a big difference to me to honestly look a lost man in the eyes and say Jesus loves you, died for you, and wants to save you. Those who believe in Limited Atonement cannot say that.

Agree that Calvinists cannot say that. The Bible never tells us to offer salvation on the basis of “God loves you, died for you, and wants to save you.” The message we proclaim is that God commands all men everywhere to repent.

What did Jesus accomplish when He died for the world? He purchased salvation for every person on the face of the earth. He made it possible to honestly offer that salvation to everyone. I believe it is deceptive to offer it to someone for whom Christ did not die; if that is the case, it is not for him.

I appreciate this. I may have not been clear what I asking earlier though… or else the thinking I’ve been doing has me wanting to ask the question differently. Anyway, what I’d like to know from those who reject particular atonement is what benefits of Christ’s death are applied to to all people, even those who do not believe?

My brief fly-over of Strong, Hodges, Shedd, McCune, cursory though it was, surprised me on some points. Shedd, for example, is emphatic that Christ’s death made an infinite payment (as is McCune), sufficient for all sins by all sinners. He denies that it was ever God’s intention that this payment be applied to any but the elect (I do not have McCune on this point yet. More digging to do… So also with Hodges, Strong, and I’d like to get some other sources too.)

But David, and others who are not for LA/PA, what would you say about this intention distinction? And JohnBrian, and GN Barkman… Is Shedd not really a proponent of Limited Atonement then or do you concur with his “infinite value, but particular intention” view?

(At the moment, I think Shedd’s take answers well to 1 John 2.2, Rom. 5:18, and “denying the Lord that bought them” … but maybe he is departing from the Reformed position on this?)

Kingdom parables of Matt. 13. If we don’t know anything else we do know that when Jesus used a field in a parable, specifically these, “…the field is the world (Mt. 13:38).”

Vs. 44—“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.”

There’s no argument to be made from Jesus’ own teaching—when gathering His kingdom he paid the price for the whole of the field.

There’s no argument to be made from Jesus’ own teaching—when gathering His kingdom he paid the price for the whole of the field.

You have conflated parables there. The “field is the world” line comes from the parable of the tares. The “buying the whole field” line comes from the parable of the hidden treasure. They are not referring to the same thing. The guy buying the whole field is not Jesus, and he is not buying the world. That parable is indicating the value of the kingdom—that the man “sells all that he has” in order to be part of the Kingdom.

I have long believed that the value of Christ’s death is infinite, sufficient to pay for the sins of 10,000 worlds, if there were such. I believe that is the position of most Calvinists. The question is not value, but purpose or intention. What did Christ intend to accomplish with His death? Answer: to redeem His chosen bride, His elect people, given to Him by the Father.