By TylerR on
Bible, Theology & Philosophy
Evangelism
Calvinism

Just because it’s been too quiet on SI lately: “If we universalize the extent of the atonement we must limit its efficacy and when we limit its efficacy it is an impoverished and truncated salvation that the ministers of evangelism have to offer.”

Discussion

Fri, 07/10/15

Well, you can’t say the author had a problem with being blunt. That being said, what a bunch of nonsense. Nothing like maligning everybody who isn’t precisely like you.

If you haven’t picked up Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views, ed. Andrew Naselli & Mark Snoeberger (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), then you ought to. All the contributors were excellent, and it gives you a very good overview on this whole issue without the tedium of the monster that is From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Fri, 07/10/15

Tyler, the book you mention is published by B&H and not Zondervan.

Fri, 07/10/15

I happen to have a capital “L” on my Minnesota driver’s license. My wife likes to joke (because we joke with each other like this!) that it stands for “Loser”. It actually stands for “Limited Mobility”

Back to the issue at hand and evangelism. Evangelism is not selling a product. It is proclaiming the Lord of the Universe and calling men to repentance.

We know (or at least as a Calvinist I start here) that some are elect. But no one has a giant “E” on his forehead. We are to proclaim Christ to all. Some will come to faith. The ones who are prompted by the Holy Spirit to exercise faith in Him are the elect.

Image source

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Fri, 07/10/15

Actually, it’s three mistakes: Nashville, TN: B&H, 2015.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Fri, 07/10/15

Only universalists don’t “limit its efficacy”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Sat, 07/11/15

There is another view on the atonement aspect of this discussion, one that supports a definite universal atonement, while avoiding universalism, and further “divorces” itself from one’s view of election (i.e. one can hold either that God elects to faith or because of faith). Further, in my opinion, it fits better with Scripture’s statements about the subject.

Scott Smith, Ph.D.

The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16