We have recently been explaining (and debating) the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption, also known as definite atonement or more popularly, limited atonement. And while my post on Calvinism and evangelism follows on the heels of that post, it really was in the works before that whole debate started. But since we are talking about Calvinism in general, and limited atonement in particular (no pun intended), I felt we would do well to heed some clarification and caution from Wayne Grudem on this subject.
If you are unfamiliar with Wayne Grudem, he is worth getting to know. He is a very influential conservative scholar, of a breed which is sadly becoming all to increasingly rare these days! He takes firm positions on hotly debated topics: he defends God’s sovereignty against open theism, and is a prime mover in the defense of complementarian views against the egalitarian or feminist position [this is the debate over women pastors and male headship in marriage]. He also has criticized some of the more liberal translations regarding their gender neutrality, being also a principle promoter of the English Standard Version. You can learn more about him here.
But perhaps his greatest contribution has been his wonderful Systematic Theology. The book is certainly technical enough to require theologians to interact with its views, yet it is designed for the average church goer, too. Grudem firmly believes that it is the call of every church member to study theology. Proper doctrine is not only for theological professionals to be concerned about. And the book does wonders for making the study of systematic theology accessible to everybody. Each chapter ends with “Questions for Personal Application” and includes a helpful index so one can find sections which cover the same material in the other major Protestant and Catholic systematic theologies. Each chapter also includes a hymn, because Grudem believes theology should move our hearts. In fact the book does just that. Doctrine is not merely analyzed in a test tube, so to speak. Application and personal involvement with the truth presented is made throughout.
Another helpful quality of Grudem’s book is its fairness to opposing views. Grudem is Reformed, but he doesn’t anathematize every other view. He quotes from first hand sources and does his best to present the chief arguments of his opponents, rather than creating a bunch of straw men. He is also careful to tread lightly at times. Rather than making bold assertions, he leans toward one view or another, while honestly acknowledging that a particular topic is open to alternative understandings.
It is just this aspect of the book which really helps us with our current discussion. Pages 601-603 provide “points of clarification and caution regarding [limited atonement]”. And from these I want to stress two points, which are pertinent for us in the discussion that is still hanging in the air concerning this doctrine.
First, we need to be careful with how we phrase things. Many a Calvinist, myself included, is comfortable with the phrase “Christ died for his people only”. But by this I actually mean (according to Grudem) “Christ died to actually pay for all the sins of his people only”. The former phrase is often interpreted or understood by non-Reformed people to be saying “Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few”. And since this is not the case, and we don’t want to communicate that idea, we Calvinists should opt for the more precise phrase, rather than the simpler expression.
Similarly, we should not get bent out of shape over the phrase “Christ died for all people”, because that phrase is true if it means “Christ died to make salvation available to all people” or “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people”. Grudem claims that Scripture itself uses such language (the first phrase) in places like John 6:51, 1 Tim. 2:6, and 1 Jn. 2:2. And often when a Calvinist is speaking pastorally, he may use the former phrase rather than the latter one. Grudem goes on to deal with the objection that some Reformed people have to the indiscriminate use of the former phrase, and it is worth the read, but we will move on here.
Secondly, Grudem stresses that both sides of the limited atonement debate agree that people will not be saved without actually believing in Christ. And both sides “want to avoid implying that there might be some people who come to Christ for salvation but are turned away because Christ did not die for them.” Both sides agree the offer of the gospel is a genuine bonafide offer: all who come/believe will be saved. Therefore, we should not make too much out of this whole debate. Grudem says,
…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….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 which should cause us to be cautious….
That is all I have from Grudem for you, but you would do well to read those pages for yourself. Since I believe that reading them might help you to convince you to buy the book yourself, let me show you a way to view those pages online. This may not work for you, but it did for me. First, go here (Google Booksearch). Second, search [in the search box on the right of the display] for the following three phrases. They will each bring up links to view the pages in question (601, 602, and 603). However, they will only let you see one page at a time. Here are the phrases (be sure to put them in quotation marks when you search): “rightly object to the way in which some advocates of particular” “unbelievers simply do not reason that way” and “ultimate cause of the atonement is found in the love”. One more note: if you click on the picture above, you will be able to order the book.
Before I go, let me recommend a fascinating interview of Wayne Grudem by Christian blogger Adrian Warnock. Here is the summary post providing links to all 9 parts and more regarding the interview.
The points gleaned from Grudem borrow heavily from pgs. 601-603 of Systematic Theology. Anything within quotes in that section is a verbatim quote from these pages.
Perhaps you are familiar with this parable concerning the difficulties of affirming both man’s free will and God’s all-encompassing sovereignty.
History aside, if one understands that Calvinism addresses the “behind the scenes” actions of God (God’s part), he will not see any contradiction between Calvinists rushing to do man’s part (evangelism). For Calvinists believe that every sinner who would be saved, must actually believe, and he must do this himself. Furthermore, we understand Scripture to clearly teach that no one gets saved apart from the gospel, and almost always people must be involved in spreading that gospel.
I recently came across two posts which led me to spend some time considering the legacy of Charles Finney.
Yet it is not Finney’s theology for which we most remember him today. Indeed most evangelicals have forgotten that he was a heretic. His theology may have influenced some liberals, but it is his methodology which has come to influence almost every sector of evangelicalism today.