Recapitulation (Patristic)
53-453: Governmental (Arminian) Limited atonement (also called definite atonement or particular redemption ) is a doctrine accepted in some Christian theological traditions . It is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism . The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, it
106-872: A metaphor for his relationship to his followers. A shepherd of those times would call his sheep from a mix of flocks, and his sheep would hear his voice and follow, while the sheep of other flocks would ignore any but their own shepherd's voice. In that context, Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, ...and I lay down my life for the sheep, " and he tells the Pharisees that they "do not believe because [they] are not part of [his] flock." He continues, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." Since Calvinists (and many other Christians) believe that not all have eternal life with God, Calvinists conclude that there are only two possibilities: either Jesus
159-428: A limit on the efficacy of the atonement rather than on its extent, like Calvinists. Some have contended that the doctrine of particular redemption implies that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but Calvinists have universally rejected this notion, instead holding that the value of the atonement is infinite but that God intentionally withholds its efficacious availability only to
212-478: A similar doctrine of the nature of the atonement with Calvinists, they differ on its extent, whereas Arminians and Methodists generally accept an alternate theory of the nature of the atonement such as the Governmental theory of atonement . The elect in such models are all the people who choose to avail themselves of God's gracious offer of salvation through Christ, not a pre-determined group. Thus, these systems place
265-443: A substitute for the sins of individuals directly. Then, it may be argued that God would be unjust to punish them even if they did not come to faith. More specifically, it may be argued that the penal substitutionary theory would lead of necessity, either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election . This argument has been considered by some as a false dilemma . In particular, Roger Olson states that penal substitution
318-463: Is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ . It teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. In the modern era, it is more often taught in non-Calvinist Protestant circles, though Arminius , John Wesley , and other Arminians never spoke clearly of it. It
371-479: Is also the view of Reformed theologians following the Synod of Dort. The doctrine of limited atonement also includes the claim that the purpose for which Jesus gave his life was limited to the elect - the atonement is limited in its purpose. For this reason, the so-called "four-point Calvinists" , such as the 17th century English Puritan Richard Baxter , reject the doctrine of limited atonement and instead believe that
424-426: Is called definite by some because they believe it certainly secures the salvation of those for whom Christ died, and it is called limited in its extent because it effects salvation for the elect only. Calvinists do not believe the power of the atonement is limited in any way, which is to say that no sin is too great to be expiated by Christ's sacrifice, in their view. Among English Calvinistic (Particular) Baptists ,
477-418: Is compatible with unlimited atonement , because through non-arbitrary basis of the faith , a person can simply refuse or accept Christ vicarious payment. Here are some objections to the theory: Hypothetical universalism Hypothetical universalism is the belief that Christ died in some sense for every person, but his death effected salvation only for those who were predestined for salvation. In
530-402: Is drawn primarily from the works of Hugo Grotius and later theologians such as John Miley and H. Orton Wiley . Governmental theory holds that Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ's receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through
583-402: Is not certain to teach a form of particular redemption and the book can also be understood in other ways, which do not necessate the view of limited atonement. The elements of the doctrine to be known as limited atonement were held by Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 808 – c. 867), Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290 – 1349), and Gregory of Rimini (c. 1300 – 1358), though there was less precision regarding
SECTION 10
#1733086120864636-463: Is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.". Others, however, claim that Calvin and the Canons of Dort are somewhat vague on this issue and accept the claim of limited atonement that the efficacy of his death was limited both in purpose and scope to the elect, though they believe his death was sufficient payment for the sin of the whole world. With regard to
689-403: Is that Christ died for the world in a universal sense (Paul Helm, Hypothetical Universalism). Amyraldian hypothetical universalism, associated with John Cameron and Moïse Amyraut , differs by asserting that God decrees the election of some to salvation logically subsequent to the decree to provide salvation through Christ. This represents a change to the traditional infralapsarian scheme of
742-612: Is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" (Section 2, Article 3). Article 8 of the same section says For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it
795-576: The New Divinity school of thought (a stage of the New England theology ) by the followers of the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). This view was possibly held by Edwards himself, although this is debated, and held by his son Jonathan Edwards (the younger) . Revival leader Charles Grandison Finney 's (1792–1875) theory of atonement is notably influenced by the governmental and
848-744: The Salvation Army . The governmental theory of the atonement is also espoused by some Church of the Nazarene theologians, such as J. Kenneth Grider , Henry Orton Wiley , R. Larry Shelton, and H. Ray Dunning . If it is traditionally taught in Arminian circles, however, according to Roger Olson , it is incorrect to assert that all Arminians agree with this view because, as he states: " Arminius did not believe it, neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians". Governmental theory can not incorporate into itself
901-470: The moral influence theories. The governmental theory of the atonement prospered in 19th century Methodism , although John Wesley did not hold to it himself. John Wesley clearly held to the penal substitution view. This view has been notably detailed by Methodist theologian John Miley (1813–1895) in his Atonement in Christ and his Systematic Theology . It was also strongly held by William Booth and
954-402: The "rectoral theory" or "moral government theory". The governmental theory arose in opposition to Socinianism . Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) wrote Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi (1617) [Defense of the universal faith on the satisfaction rendered by Christ], in which he utilized semantics drawn from his training in law and his general view of God as moral governor (ruler) of
1007-434: The Father;[...] In contrast, James Arminius states in his works the following: [...]To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing ( prevenient ) grace , believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to
1060-432: The atonement is "from above", from the side of God, and other views, where the work is offered up from the side of man. According to the governmental theory, the scope of the substitution is unlimited. Individuals then partake of the atonement through faith. Under this view, therefore, people can fall out of the scope of atonement through loss of faith. According to the penal substitution theory, Christ's death served as
1113-529: The atonement is available to all who will believe in Christ. They also argue that it was never endorsed by Calvin or the Synod of Dort. They refer to both Calvin's claim that "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world'" and to Article 3 of the Second Main Point of Doctrine of the Synod of Dort which states that "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it
SECTION 20
#17330861208641166-400: The atonement is therefore the basis of the necessity for a limited atonement. The Calvinist view of predestination teaches that God created Adam in a state of original righteousness, but he fell into sin and all humanity in him as their federal head . Those elected to salvation were chosen without a view to their faith or good works but by the sovereign will of God. The Calvinist atonement
1219-475: The atonement was to be efficacious, and so the efficacy of the atonement was still limited to the elect. Most of the Reformed rejected this view because it envisioned a decree of God (the conditional decree to save all) that was intentionally not realized. The doctrine of the limited scope (or extent) of the atonement is intimately tied up with the doctrine of the nature of the atonement . It also has much to do with
1272-426: The before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere.[...] Governmental theory of atonement Recapitulation (Patristic) Governmental (Arminian) The governmental theory of the atonement (also known as the rectoral theory , or the moral government theory )
1325-474: The church (that is, the elect) only. Opponents to Calvinism often cite passages such as those below they believe clearly contradict limited atonement: Chapter 3, paragraph 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith says, "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." The Canons of Dort assert that "This death of God's Son
1378-408: The doctrine was usually known as particular redemption , giving its adherents the name Particular Baptists . This term emphasizes the intention of God to save particular persons through the atonement, as opposed to mankind in general as General Baptists believe. The classic Bible passage cited to prove a limited extent to the atonement is John 10 in which Jesus uses shepherding practices as
1431-514: The elect alone, the reprobate being excluded even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom 9:11). The same Holy Scriptures testify that the counsel and will of God do not change, but stand immovable, and God in the heavens does whatsoever he will (Ps 115:3; Isa 47:10); for God is infinitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and desires, rashness repentance and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with
1484-540: The elect. This table summarizes three different Protestant beliefs. In the Lutheran confessions, the Formula of Concord on the article on the doctrine of election states: The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God's ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before
1537-463: The emphasis on God's love, which is the main point in the Abelardian moral influence theory of atonement . It includes the substitutionary aspect of the atonement. The governmental view is very similar to the satisfaction view and the penal substitution view, in that all three views see Christ as satisfying God's requirement for the punishment of sin. However, the governmental view disagrees with
1590-474: The extent of the atonement before the Reformation period. The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 in order to decide a controversy between the followers of Jacobus Arminius ( Arminians ), and other Calvinists . One of the issues involved had to do with the reason for the limitation of the efficacy of Christ's satisfaction for sin (roughly, atonement ). Both sides of the controversy agreed that this efficacy
1643-514: The first Adam, but as redeemed in the second Adam, he elected, that is, he determined graciously to bestow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act election properly so-called is complete. For these and all other similar teachings are in no way insignificant deviations from the proper teaching concerning divine election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God’s purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to
Limited atonement - Misplaced Pages Continue
1696-636: The foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1:4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. The Canons of Dort, one of the earliest Calvinist confessions, state in the Second Head, Article 8: [...]it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by
1749-501: The general Calvinist view of predestination . Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement , which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas . In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, known as penal substitution , states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby receives in himself
1802-434: The history of Reformed theology, there have been several examples of hypothetical universalist systems, all of which are considered errant by traditional Calvinism. Amyraldism is one of these, but hypothetical universalism as a whole is sometimes erroneously equated with it. Hypothetical universalism is believed to be outside the bounds of the Reformed tradition. For example, Canon VI states Wherefore, we can not agree with
1855-494: The limited purpose or intent of the atonement to save only the elect, another argument was put forth later in the 17th century. Moses Amyraut and several others ( Amyraldists ) proposed a system called hypothetical universalism , which taught that in God's decree for Christ to be a sufficient atonement for all sin, his intention was to save all on condition that they believe. This decree was prior to his decree to elect some people for whom
1908-406: The logical order of God's decrees, where God's decree to save some was conceived of as logically preceding his decree to provide salvation. It is the same order as that advocated by Jacobus Arminius and his followers, though Amyraldians differed from Arminians by asserting that there are two phases to God's decree to save some. First, God decrees the salvation of all through Christ, but this decree
1961-452: The main elements of two major theories: a satisfaction theory of atonement and a penal substitution theory of atonement . However it can incorporate different understandings promoted in the other major atonement theories. It incorporates notably Peter Forsyth 's emphasis on how the holiness of God figures in the atonement. It incorporates emphasis on Christ's ransoming humans as in the classical ransom theory of atonement . It incorporates
2014-455: The opinion of those who teach: l) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a kind of special love for the fallen of the human race, did, in a kind of conditioned willing, first moving of pity, as they call it, or inefficacious desire, determine the salvation of all, conditionally, i.e., if they would believe, 2) that he appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and 3) that, at length, certain ones whom he regarded, not simply as sinners in
2067-400: The other two in that it does not affirm that Christ endured the precise punishment that sin deserves or paid its sacrificial equivalent. Instead, Christ's suffering was simply an alternative to that punishment. In contrast, penal substitution holds that Christ endured the exact punishment, or the exact "worth" of punishment, that sin deserved; the satisfaction theory states that Christ made
2120-477: The penalty of the sins of men. The doctrine of limited atonement is often argued from the theological argument of double jeopardy. In the limited view, Jesus Christ has taken the penalty of the elect - that Jesus died for those who would believe, so that those for whom Christ died must be saved and cannot be damned as it would be unjust for God to punish the same sins twice (double jeopardy). If Jesus died for all, they argue, then all must be saved. The penal theory of
2173-475: The power of death over humans from within. In the words of Gustaf Aulen , the satisfaction view (and, by extension, the governmental and penal views) maintain the order of justice while interrupting the continuity of the divine work, while the Christus Victor view interrupts the order of justice while maintaining the continuity of the divine work. He also draws a distinction between Christus Victor, wherein
Limited atonement - Misplaced Pages Continue
2226-603: The salvation of those who were given to him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken away, proceeds from one and the same election, and does not form the basis of election. English hypothetical universalism was advanced by John Preston , John Davenant , and James Ussher . This scheme teaches that God ineffectually decrees that all men be saved by deeming an intent for the atonement for all men, but because God knows that some men will not have faith he makes an effectual decree to save those whom he predestines to salvation. The primary thought in hypothetical universalism
2279-544: The salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ so that it is each person's decision and response to God's grace that determines whether Christ's atonement will be effective to that individual. A modified form of the doctrine also exists in Molinism . The second century document Martyrdom of Polycarp said that Christ "suffered for the world of the saved", which can be interpreted to support an idea like limited atonement, however it
2332-543: The satisfaction owed by humans to God due to sin through the merit of His propitiatory sacrifice. These three views all acknowledge that God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted. By contrast, the Christus Victor view, states that Christ died not to fulfill God's requirements or to meet His needs or demands, but to cleanse humanity, restore the Image of God in humankind, and defeat
2385-401: The suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation . Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to "pass over." The governmental theory of the atonement is also known as
2438-548: The universe. Grotius demonstrated that the atonement appeased God in the divine role as cosmic king and judge, and especially that God could not have simply overlooked sin as the Socinians claimed. The original editions of the Defence was reprinted at Oxford in 1636; and the first translation was made in 1692. Grotius' theological writings were published in four folio volumes at London and Amsterdam in 1679. The Grotian theory
2491-570: The very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle. Limited atonement is contrasted with the view popularly termed unlimited atonement , which is advocated by Arminian , Methodist , Lutheran , Messianic Jewish , and Roman Catholic theologians (among others) and which says Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but certain for none. (This doctrine should not be confused with concepts of universal reconciliation , in which God saves his entire creation). Though Lutherans and Catholics share
2544-586: The world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.". Paul instructs the elders in Ephesus "to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood," and he says in his letter to the same church that "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. " Likewise, Jesus foreshadows that he will lay down his life "for his friends," and an angel tells Jesus' earthly father Joseph that he "will save His people from their sins". Calvinists believe that these passages demonstrate that Jesus died for
2597-632: Was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to
2650-530: Was adopted in England by Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) and partially by Richard Baxter (1615–1691). Grotius' writings were also published at Basel in 1732. They were in Harvard College library in 1723 and Yale College library in 1733. Grotius' first work was translated into English by F. H. Foster, and published at Andover in 1889. Variations of governmental theory of the atonement have been espoused in
2703-515: Was limited to the elect. The disagreement had to do with the grounds for this limitation. For Arminius, the ground was the free choice of people to believe, foreknown by God, with God predestining people based on this foreseen faith. For the opponents of Arminius, whose views are represented in the Canons of Dort , this efficacy was limited based on God's predestination, without any foreknowledge of human choice. Calvin clearly taught this second view, and it
SECTION 50
#17330861208642756-399: Was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ's death would work itself out in only the elect , thereby leading them without fail to salvation. According to Limited Atonement, Christ died for the sins of the elect alone, and no atonement was provided for the reprobate. This is in contrast to a belief that God's prevenient grace (or "enabling grace") enables all to respond to
2809-484: Was wrong in saying that he would lose none of his sheep (a conclusion they reject), or Jesus must not have laid down his life for everyone, as they understand John 10 to imply. Formally, the Calvinist position can be expressed this way: Additionally, in the high priestly prayer, Jesus prays for the protection and sanctification of those who believed in him, and he explicitly excludes praying for all: "I am not praying for
#863136