Debates over the scope of the atonement are typically cast in the following terms:
Calvinists say Christ only died for some (the elect) whereas Arminians say Christ died for all.
This, in turn, raises stock objections to Calvinism. For instance, the Arminian will say, “How does a Calvinist know that Christ died for him?”
Or, “A Reformed evangelist can’t tell a sinner that Christ died for him.”
In this formulation, both sides seem to share a qualitatively similar view of the atonement: vicarious atonement. Where they differ is on the quantitative extent of the atonement.
Mind you, the apparent similarity is quite superficial. In Calvinism, the atonement of Christ actually secures the salvation of the redeemed.
But there’s another issue. The framework is deceptive inasmuch as it fosters the impression that both sides are talking about the same thing. But consider the following statement:
randal says:
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 9:13pm
Historically the governmental view of atonement (Grotius’ theory) has been much more influential, and for good reason since Arminians historically have rejected both limited atonment and universalism.
And we should confess and sing it even if we believe (as most Arminians historically have) that Jesus did not literally suffer for specific sins committed by human beings.
*Sort of* in the sense that God’s moral governance requires there be a repercussion for sinful indiscretions. But governance theory surrenders the one conceptually problematic piece of penal substitution (the one that I raised with you), namely the notion of guilt for specific sins being such that it can be transferred from one agent to another like a debt.
Arminians like Rauser have a fundamentally different view of the atonement. It isn’t just the extent of the atonement, but what kind of atonement is being extended.
If you operate with Rauser’s view, then the point of contrast doesn’t lie between Christ dying for some over against Christ dying for all.
Rather, the point contrast lies between Christ dying for some over against Christ dying for none. Rauser doesn’t believe Christ died for anyone, in the penal substitutionary sense.
He may still use vicarious or substitutionary verbiage, but that’s code language for something very different.
Put another way, there are two different ways of asking the question:
i) Did Christ die for you?
ii) Did Christ die for you?
Arminians typically accentuate the pronoun (“you”). Yet the preposition (“for”) does the heavy lifting.
When we say that Christ died for someone, we typically take that as shorthand for saying Christ took their place.
We could also ask the question this way:
iii) Did Christ die for you?
This throws emphasis on the death of Christ. Why did he have to die? What’s the redemptive significance or redemptive necessity of his dying?
If the preposition (“for”) accentuates the vicarious character of the atonement, the verb (“died)” accentuates the penal character of the atonement.
Incidentally, Calvinists don’t object to telling people that Christ died for them. They just object to telling unbelievers that Christ died for them. But they don’t object to telling believers that Christ died for them.
This could also be expressed conditionally: if you believe in Christ, then Christ died for you.
Rauser thinks that penal substitution is consistent with Calvinism and universalism, but inconsistent with Arminianism. So why do contemporary Arminians generally subscribe to penal substitution? For two reasons:
i) It’s more preachable. Very direct. Many people intuitively appreciate the principle. For many, it has great emotional appeal.
ii) In modern times, most Arminians are fundamentalists, dispensationalists, or Pentecostals. They come out of theological traditions that affirm penal substitution. They may have broken with the parent tradition in other respects, but penal substitution is a carryover which they stoutly maintain. It’s only recently that this residual Calvinism has come under scrutiny from Arminians who wish to purify their theology of these vestigial debts to Calvinism.
Finally, it would be possible to preach a 5-point sermon on each word in this brief question:
Did Christ die for you?
Did Christ die for you?
Did Christ die for you?
Did Christ die for you?
Did Christ die for you?
I don't see how Arminians escape either way. They firstly have to deal with the detailed description of the atonement in Hebrews, where it is clear what the atonement achieved.
ReplyDeleteThey then also have to address their internal flaw, where they also don't really believe that Christ died for all the sins of all people, unless they are universalist. They believe that Christ died for those who believe.
"Calvinists say Christ only died for some (the elect) whereas Arminians say Christ died for all.
ReplyDeleteThis, in turn, raises stock objections to Calvinism. For instance, the Arminian will say, “How does a Calvinist know that Christ died for him?”"
FWIW, I've also seen Lutherans raise the same objection to Limited Atonement as Arminians.
Thanks for writing a post which applies to both Arminians and Lutherans.
Arminians have a limited atonement, too. They just limit it in its extent.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question is: "No, Christ did not 'die for' anyone in the sense you propose."
ReplyDeleteProof: Death is a punishment due to sin, yet Christians still die, thus Christ didn't "take the place" of anyone in that regard.