Christ's Redemption and Atonement

[ReformedBaptist]

Hey all,

Kind of re-hashing a former thread here concerning Limited Atonement, but I wanted to begin with a statement that Allen made.

Thus the Atonement is unlimited in extent but limited in redemption.

I honestly in almost 15 years of being a Christian have never heard such a statement nor have I ever percieved such a distinction from Scripture. How such a distinction can be made I am not sure. Now this is just my lack of study in the intricacies of the debate. I found that John Owen had dealt with this in his un-refuted essay entitled "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is a polemical work defending Limited Atonement, also called Particular Redemption.

Based on Allen's quote, one could right say he believes in Limited Redemption, but Universal Atonement. Doesn't this distinction (I don't think it could be properly called a separation) is odd? How do we distinguish between Redemption and Atonement? Do we have a biblical justification for this?

I would assume what is meant here is that the actual redemption is limited to those have it applied to themselves through their faith. It in effect is saying, all are atoned for, but only those to whom the atonement is applied are redeemed, and therefore limits redemption.

In chapter IV of Owen's work, we find him dealing with the distinction of impetration and application. He writes,

"They say, then, that in the oblation of Christ, and concerning the good things by him procured, two things are to be considered--First, The impetration, or obtaining of them; and secondly, The application of them to particular persons. "The first," say they, "is general, in respect to all. Christ obtained and procured all good things by his deah of (that is to say, from) his Father,--reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness of sins,--for all and every man in the world, if they will believe and lay hold upon him: but in respect of application, they are actually bestowed and conferred but on a few; because but a few believe, whichi is the condition on which they are bestowed." p. 110, Banner of Truth Trust.

Of the Arminians Owen writes,

"First, Some of them say that Christ, by his death and passion, did absolutley, according to the intention of God, purchase for all and every man, dying for them, remission of sins and reconciliation with God, or a restitution into a state of grace and favour; all which shall be actually benefical to them, provided that they do believe. So the Arminians" p.110

A few other variances Owen mentions but makes this final comment on the matter,

"And sundry other ways there are whereby men express their conceptions in this business. The sum of all comes to this, and the weight of all lies upon that distinction which we before recounted;--namely, that in respect o impetration, Christ obtained redemption and reconcilation for all; in repect of application, it is bestowed only on them who do believe and continue therein." p.111

Now Allen seems to be saying something a little differently than Owen has explained of other's views, and particularly Owen's use of Redemption within the atonement. But so far, Owen's commentary is the closest thing I have found in a distinction being made to what Allen has proposed.

But I would like to know a few things from Allen regarding his statement:

1. One what Scriptural basis do you make the distinction between Christ's atonement and His redemption?

2. Explain how an Atonement, in our case the blood of Jesus Christ, can exceed the extent of the Redemption? Let add some clarification. The object of Redemption must be by your limitation, believers. This is that which was purchased by the blood (atonement) of Christ. At the risk of sounding irreverant, did Christ over-pay for the purchased possession? You see then my dilemma. How can the payment exceed what was purchased?

3. How does your distinction reconcile with the fact that Christ came to establish a New Covenant with His people? In other words, if the Atonement is universal, and a the blood of Christ IS the blood of the New Covenant, then what has been established with those who finally perish?


I will end off here, though I have more questions and will share more of Owen's refutation of the distinction he wrote of. But I want to make sure that I am understanding the distinction you have made, Allen, and how it might agree or disagree with the impetration and application disctinction.

 

[Amy.G]

The sacrifice has been made by Christ for all men, just as the atonement was made for all of Israel by the high priest. But the blood is only applied by faith, both under the old covenant and the new.
Simple.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The sacrifice has been made by Christ for all men, just as the atonement was made for all of Israel by the high priest. But the blood is only applied by faith, both under the old covenant and the new.
Simple.

One wish it were that simple. But it doesn't make sense Amy. If the application of the things which Christ purchased are the end for why they are purchased or procured, then those for whom Christ procured them must be applied to all of them, or else Christ has failed in His purpose. And this is inconcieveable.

The application MUST be the end from the beginning to obtain those things which the death of Christ procured. Think about it. If the applying of those things were not the end, then Christ aimed at nothing. Then Christ's death might have been of none effect. If the application of the things purchased where not to the applying of them, then it might have been that not a single soul would be saved.

But Christ came into the world "to save sinners" and to "bring many sons unto glory" Was God the Father in sending the Son not certain to what end, or application, would be of the things the Son purchased by His death? God forbid! As Owen puts it:

"Did he appoint a Saviour without thought of them that were to be saved? a Redeemer, not determining who should be redeemed? Did he resolve of a means, not determining the end? It is an assertion opposite to all the glorious properties of God."

To the Arminians and non-cals I say, your means and application argument utterly fails both Scripture and reason. By reason I have shown by what I wrote above. And by Scripture consider the following that unite and does not separate both the procurment AND application:

"By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," there is the application, "for he shall bear their iniquities," there is the impetration. Jesus Christ HAS justified all those whose iniquites He bore.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement and our peace was upon him; and by his striped we are healed." Isaiah 53

And this, "and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." For whom did Christ intercede? And how can you separate even this, His intercession, from his Redemption/Atonement? And His intercession is for the application of those things which He Himself has procured.

"By the righteousness of one (impetration) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" application. Romans 5

As Owen rightly concludes, "That for whom God gives His Son, to them, in Him, He freely gives all things; therefore, all things obtained by His death must be bestowed, and are, on them for whom He died." p.113

 

[Amy.G]

It is simple. The application comes through faith. There are two requirements for salvation. A payment for sin and faith in God.

The high priest made atonement for all of Israel. But was all Israel saved? No. Only those whose faith was in God.
When the serpent was lifted up in the desert it was for all to look upon and be healed, but only those who looked in faith were healed. These are shadows of the true sacrifice of Christ. He was lifted up for all to look upon, but only those who believe will be saved. He even made this comparison Himself.

Jhn 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Jhn 3:15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is simple. The application comes through faith. There are two requirements for salvation. A payment for sin and faith in God.

The high priest made atonement for all of Israel. But was all Israel saved? No. Only those whose faith was in God.
When the serpent was lifted up in the desert it was for all to look upon and be healed, but only those who looked in faith were healed. These are shadows of the true sacrifice of Christ. He was lifted up for all to look upon, but only those who believe will be saved. He even made this comparison Himself.

Jhn 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Jhn 3:15 "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Thanks Amy. When you actually deal with my post(s) then I will reply to you, rather than responding to the same information again.

 

[Amy.G]

Thanks Amy. When you actually deal with my post(s) then I will reply to you, rather than responding to the same information again.

Sorry RB. I don't know what else to say. Maybe someone else will do a better job.

 

[russell55]

Thus the Atonement is unlimited in extent but limited in redemption.

I'd be curious to know how Allan defines atonement. What does atonement itself do?

 

[russell55]

The high priest made atonement for all of Israel. But was all Israel saved?

Amy, was the atonement made by the high priest was supposed to save anyone?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, was the atonement made by the high priest was supposed to save anyone?

The purpose of the atonement was to cover sin.


Hbr 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.


Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new* covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Act 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."


The atonement was made but we must believe.

 

[Tom Butler]

If I've read correctly, most non-Calvinists separate the atonement from the actual redemption. It is demanded by their view of a universal atonement for all, but a limited application only to those repent and believe.

I don't want to speak for Allan, but I think that's probably what he means.

That view has consequences, however, Those who hold it must also hold that the atonement does not guarantee salvation (redemption) to anybody. Conceivably, Jesus could have died on the cross and not one single person ever be saved.

I'm grateful that Jesus came to seek and save those who are lost--not seek and make possible the salvation of the lost.

 

[Amy.G]

If I've read correctly, most non-Calvinists separate the atonement from the actual redemption. It is demanded by their view of a universal atonement for all, but a limited application only to those repent and believe.

I don't know about most, but that's pretty much the way I see it.

That view has consequences, however, Those who hold it must also hold that the atonement does not guarantee salvation (redemption) to anybody.

It doesn't guarantee salvation without faith. Salvation requires two things. Sin must be punished and you must have faith. Cal and non Cal alike I'm sure agree on this.

Conceivably, Jesus could have died on the cross and not one single person ever be saved.

I don't think that's conceivable at all. God knows everything. He knew some would believe.

I'm grateful that Jesus came to seek and save those who are lost--not seek and make possible the salvation of the lost.

Me too! And all are lost without Him.

 

[Rippon]

God knows everything. He knew some would believe.

That's rather weak. God just passively knows in your view. The Lord does not determine,decree,appoint or ordain in your estimation.

 

[TCGreek]

That's rather weak. God just passively knows in your view. The Lord does not determine,decree,appoint or ordain in your estimation.

Amy has redefined what the Bible means by God foreknowing an individual.

 

[russell55]

The purpose of the atonement was to cover sin.


Hbr 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.


Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new* covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Act 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."


The atonement was made but we must believe.

Sorry, Amy. I don't think I made myself clear. I was not thinking about the atonement made under the new covenant--the one Jesus made on the cross--but the atonement made by the high priest under the old covenant because I thought that's what the quote I quoted from you was referring to, when you say that the high priest made atonement for all of Israel but all Israel wasn't saved.

That made me think that you believe that the OT sacrifice of atonement was a saving atonement. I'm still not clear on that. Do you believe the Old Covenant atonement was supposed to save anyone? And why or why not?

 

[nunatak]

Okay, let me wade in.

One of the scriptures that I think make the Cal position re: limited atonement difficult in that it seems to favor the Arm. view is:

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

If I understand correctly, propitiation in this usage is interchangeable with atonement.

Thus, one way to look at this is that Christ's death provided an atonement for the entire world, and the entire world may access that atonement by faith. I agree that this usage doesn't seem to magnify the glory of Christ's death. It seems more fitting that those for whom Christ died, will also have their sins atoned. Thus Christ will truly seek and save that which was lost.

I believe that those for whom Christ died will of necessity have their sins atoned. If John is stating that Christ's death provided a propitiation for the sins of ALL mankind, then I conclude that all men will therefore be redeemed.

Clearly this can not be the case. I must be interpreting I John 2:2 incorrectly. I need to begin again.

 

[Amy.G]

If John is stating that Christ's death provided a propitiation for the sins of ALL mankind, then I conclude that all men will therefore be redeemed.

Only if faith is not required.

If the atonement was all that was required to reconcile us to God, then why does God require that we have faith?

I keep hearing that the sacrifice of Christ secured salvation for some. But it does not secure salvation apart from faith.

1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Not some of the world, but all of it. Will all of the world be saved? No. Only those who put their faith in Christ will be saved. Christ did all the work, but we still have to believe, and through faith the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner. The OT tells the same thing. The passover lamb was sacrified, but the blood had to be applied to the doorpost for occupants to escape death.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If the atonement was all that was required to reconcile us to God, then why does God require that we have faith?

This was answered in my above posts. Christ procured salvation for those for whom He died. He actually and truly accomplished it to save them from their sins. It is quite reasonable then that He would make application of it by His grace and ways in bringing them to repentance and faith in Him.

I keep hearing that the sacrifice of Christ secured salvation for some. But it does not secure salvation apart from faith.

Obvioulsy the Lord intended to save by His grace through faith. And this He did in Christ before the world began.

1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Not some of the world, but all of it. Will all of the world be saved? No. Only those who put their faith in Christ will be saved. Christ did all the work, but we still have to believe, and through faith the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner. The OT tells the same thing. The passover lamb was sacrified, but the blood had to be applied to the doorpost for occupants to escape death.

Why do you insiste that 1 John 2:2 must mean each and every person? Why must "whole world" here mean each and every person? Do you think this means the same thing in every place? Take this very epistle for example. "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 5:19

Do you think John meant to include himself in this statement? Or the Christians to whom he was writing? Or other Christians who were at that time in the world? Certainly there is a limitation to "whole world" in 1 John 5:19.

And this you say, "Christ did all the work, but we will have to believe." either diminishes the complete work of Christ or else you see believing as something separate from Christ, not included in His work, and is a work of our own to which we add to the finished work of Christ, the apporbation of it being left to us. But I think your saying, because of the example your using, is the application of it, which I have already before proved by Scripture is not left to man, but is also Christ's work.

Yes, the blood needed to be applied to the door posts. And truly the Lord Jesus is our Passover. That these Israelites believed the Lord is evident that every one of them did as the Lord commanded, for it is written "And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they." Ex 12:28. And so all Israel was saved.

And Israel is all that will ever be saved. We who believe in Jesus Christ are the Israel of God. And there is not one of us who will be finally destroyed with the wicked. Just as God sent Moses to deliver Israel from the Eqpytians, so He sent Christ Jesus to save His chosen people out of every nation, tongue, tribe. Not of Jews only, but also of the whole world.

-RB

 

[russell55]

The OT tells the same thing. The passover lamb was sacrificed, but the blood had to be applied to the doorpost for occupants to escape death.

Yes, but didn't all of Israel apply the blood to the doorpost? Wasn't all of Israel delivered?

In other words, wasn't the sacrifice of the passover lamb effective for all for whom it was made?

Isn't it the same with the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement? It wasn't a sacrifice that saved anyone or provided genuine access to God because it couldn't take away sin or cleanse the conscience. But the ceremonial (or external or outward) cleansing that it provided was effective for all of Israel, wasn't it? Didn't the cleansing that came from the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement allow God to remain with all of Israel for yet another year.

 

[russell55]

I keep hearing that the sacrifice of Christ secured salvation for some. But it does not secure salvation apart from faith.

Salvation isn't applied apart from faith. But you don't want to say that the sacrifice of Christ did not in itself secure salvation, do you? After all, Hebrews tells us

[Christ] entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

.

Christ's work is complete in itself. Our faith does not serve as something that makes his work effective. It serves only as the vehicle or instrument through which we receive his completed and effective work.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy has redefined what the Bible means by God foreknowing an individual.

God foreknew that you would say that. Did God decree that you would say that?