The Limits of Christ's Atonement

[Rey Reynoso]

I have my theories but I'm not putting them up here. Here's the question:

Was Christ's Atonement limited? If you don't like that phrasing Was Christ's atonement particular (to specific individuals)?

If so, say how and if not, say why.

[Jack]

James; "and that not of yourselves" doesn't need a greek scholar. Whether THAT refers to grace or faith, it is all a gift from God, and not of ourselves . You are right! the overwhelming message of the passage is grace, from God! So why do we insist upon adding something, we can or must do, to it?
Jack
James Gibbons said:

Jack said:

Jacksons; I agree with your statement, except, sinners don't put Their faith in Christ! Faith is a gift of God"s grace! Ephesians 2:8,9.
JacksonS said:

Yes absolutely, the atonement is limited to those who repent and put their faith in Christ. The only individuals who reap the benefits of the cross are those who receive it. (cites 50 verses)

Could someone help Jack and me with the Greek grammar here.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There are three possible antecedents to the word “that” in Ephesians 2:8: “grace,” “faith,” or the clause, “you are saved.” The limited atonement folks always make the antecedent “faith.” But I’m not sure about that. Look at the greater context.

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Overwhelmingly, the passage is about the grace of God. The passage is not about faith. Why, then, do we pluck these two verses out of context, and make faith the antecedent. Seems to be contrary to the overall meaning of the passage.

Must be something in the Greek. Little help, please.

[Char]

Most Christians do. Well except Origen. But that guy wrote like he smoked crack all the time.

[Cherrilynn Bisbano]

Hi I was thinking about this passage today. Faith and Grace are both from God. They have to be. Without the Holy Spirit calling us we do not have the ability to even cry out to God.
We were dead in our sins and now we are alive in Christ. I would really love to get the complete breakdown from a greek scholar. Are there any out there?
I really appreciate this blog. Thank you to all who participate.

James Gibbons said:

Jack said:

Jacksons; I agree with your statement, except, sinners don't put Their faith in Christ! Faith is a gift of God"s grace! Ephesians 2:8,9.
JacksonS said:

Yes absolutely, the atonement is limited to those who repent and put their faith in Christ. The only individuals who reap the benefits of the cross are those who receive it. (cites 50 verses)

Could someone help Jack and me with the Greek grammar here.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There are three possible antecedents to the word “that” in Ephesians 2:8: “grace,” “faith,” or the clause, “you are saved.” The limited atonement folks always make the antecedent “faith.” But I’m not sure about that. Look at the greater context.

Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Overwhelmingly, the passage is about the grace of God. The passage is not about faith. Why, then, do we pluck these two verses out of context, and make faith the antecedent. Seems to be contrary to the overall meaning of the passage.

Must be something in the Greek. Little help, please.

[Rey Reynoso]

People put faith in God. The allowance of working things this way is by God's grace. But the whole package is altogether on God's side: His salvation. The Parallelism reinfornces that it is Salvation (made up of God's grace through people's faith) that is God's gift. Not faith. Not grace. All of salvation.

Here's someone who said it smarter than me (Walvoord and Zuck):
Though some think it refers back to “grace” and others to “faith,” neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas “grace” and “faith” are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause.

And A.T.Lincoln :
καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον, “and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” In the history of interpretation τοῦτο has been taken by some to refer specifically to the last word in the preceding clause, “faith” (among recent commentators cf. Caird, 53), so that even faith itself is explicitly said not to come from a human source but from God as his gift. But the parallelism of the two clauses of v 8b and v 9 suggests, rather, that both are comments about the introductory clause of v 8a. τοῦτο is probably best taken, therefore, as referring to the preceding clause as a whole, and thus to the whole process of salvation it describes, which of course includes faith as its means “Not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” can be seen as a further explanation of the grace aspect of salvation.

[ScottL]

Ok, maybe we should look to specifically answer Rey's questions... :)

I personally lean towards a particular atonement view, meaning that, though the atonement is sufficient for anyone, it is only efficacious for the elect. Christ only died as a substitute and in the place of the elect.

Before I point out Scriptures for the particular atonement case, can I lay out a logical and reasoned conclusion I regularly ponder, which I then expect Rey to come in and show me the holes. :)

(As a side note, I am going to assume we can understand the atonement as substitutionary, meaning Christ died and was a substitute in the place of others, whether all humanity or the elect.)

If Christ's atonement was 'unlimited', meaning it was for every individual past, present and future, then that would logically mean that Christ was a substitute and propitiation (appeasement for God's wrath) for everyone. Thus, He would have paid the penalty for sin due to all of humanity, including each individual. But, if Christ paid the penalty for each individual that has ever lived and will ever live (including unbelievers), then, for God to judge any unbeliever for those same sins would mean He is requiring double payment, which, for me, would seem unjust. Either Christ paid for it or we do. Not neither and not both. One or the other - you or He. My conclusion is that, if you take the understanding of unlimited atonement to its full and final logical conclusions, you are left with universalism that says everyone will be saved and forgiven. For Christ died for every individual, He paid for each and every person's sin, He was a substitute for each and every person and took on the Father's wrath that each and every person deserves. So why would God judge the person for which Christ already was a substitute for and paid for their sin, even for the unbeliever that never came to faith in Christ? It would seem He wouldn't require them to be punished since Christ was already punished in their place (though they never came to faith). Thus, I see unlimited atonement as possibly leading to the conclusion that all will be saved and forgiven.

Ok, your turn, Rey. :)

[Rey Reynoso]

...and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world...

[ScottL]

Rey -

I think the reformed viewpoint would usually see John using the word 'world' in regards to saying the work of Christ is now for all nations, all peoples, all tribes, etc, which is possibly in contrast to a view that would say it is only a particular Jewish thing, or at least in contrast to a view that would say it is for every single individual past, present and future. It is more a wholistic word rather than an every individual world.

[ScottL]

RBooth -

You stated - 'The Atoning work of Christ is for the whole of mankind. John 3.16 makes this clear.'

I know I just posted this, but consider - the word 'world' is in regards to communicating that the work of Christ is now for all nations, all peoples, all tribes, etc, which is possibly in contrast to a view that would say it is only a particular Jewish thing (which was very prevalent in the first century), or at least in contrast to a view that would say it is for every single individual past, present and future. It is more a wholistic word rather than an every individual word.

You also stated - 'Nor will ALL mankind call upon the Name of Christ for salvation.'

But if Christ paid for their sin, even though they didn't believe, why would God hold their sin against them? Remember, Christ already paid for it in their place at the cross. So, if God held their sin against Christ and judged Christ at the cross, why would He make them pay for it as well?

[ScottL]

RBooth -

I don't think you considered my comments fully or answered the questions.

To be honest, I am not even dogmatic about limited/particular atonement. I lean towards it - Scripturally and logically - but I am not dogmatic. Still, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts in regards to my full comment and questions.

[Jack]

Rbooth; Putting wods in my mouth, again?

R_Booth said:

just so there is clarity:

the Spirit's regenerating of a non-believer has nothing to do with arminiansin nor calvanism.

sorry Jack. Thats just another traditional teaching that we have err-ed in, The Scriptures do not say that the calvanist/arminian Spirit regenerates.....at least not in my Bible.

so as to earlier:

The Atoning work of Christ is for the whole of mankind. John 3.16 makes this clear. But NOT all of Mankind will believe. Will they. Nor will ALL mankind call upon the Name of Christ for salvation..

So rey is correct in his referral to Christ being the propitiation for the whole of the world and all contained therein.

Scott, prove your viewpoint that the Atoning work of Christ is just for the ""elect""?

[remember: when you first read, you must do your best to acquire the time and the thought that is being attempted in speaking to those of that the era, then see how there is application to the present.]

[Crazyupstart]

Saving grace is for who? The elect. Who? The predestined. Who? The ones whom God called before the foundation of time. ELECTION is the total basis for Limited Atonement. The "grace" in question is an argument of either being savific grace or common grace.

The whole work of salvation is of God (yeah, that's the grace part). Can God be gracious to the eternally damned, or more softly put, those who will never repent? Sure. (common grace)

Was Christs life and Passion done to save people who would never be saved? I don't even see how that can be a logical argument. Where's the logic?: Christ came to redeem people who are not in his plan to redeem. He atoned for everyone but only some are atoned for good enough.

The only ones who end up in heaven are the sinners saved by grace.
All sinners saved by grace must be regenerate repenters.
Only Gods elect become regenerate; a work he installs in us and we (the dead) respond to (are made alive).
Therefore Christ died to save everyone. He atoned for all sins of all men. Everybody's a winner!!! Woot!

[ScottL]

Crazy -

Maybe I misunderstood your comment but it seems your argument was going in favor of particular/limited atonement, but then your conclusion seemed in favor of unlimited atonement - 'Therefore Christ died to save everyone. He atoned for all sins of all men. Everybody's a winner!!!'

Or was that sarcasm? Or did I miss something? I'm confused.

Crazyupstart said:

Saving grace is for who? The elect. Who? The predestined. Who? The ones whom God called before the foundation of time. ELECTION is the total basis for Limited Atonement. The "grace" in question is an argument of either being savific grace or common grace.

The whole work of salvation is of God (yeah, that's the grace part). Can God be gracious to the eternally damned, or more softly put, those who will never repent? Sure.

Was Christs life and Passion done to save people who would never be saved? I don't even see how that can be a logical argument. Where's the logic?: Christ came to redeem people who are not in his plan to redeem.

The only ones who end up in heaven are the sinners saved by grace.
All sinners saved by grace must be regenerate repenters.
Only Gods elect become regenerate; a work he installs in us and we (the dead) respond to (are made alive).
Therefore Christ died to save everyone. He atoned for all sins of all men. Everybody's a winner!!! Woot!