Anyone studying church history will find that a major debate has been raging in the church for 400 years on the scope of Christ’s atonement. Some say that Jesus atoned for every sin of every person that ever lived. Those who hold that view believe in Unlimited Atonement. The other side of the debate is framed by those who hold to Limited Atonement. This group believes that Christ atoned only for the sins of those who would be saved.
That is how the two sides of the problem should be expressed. Yet as simply as these positions may be put, most of the conflict I hear is about a different issue. Most reduce the atonement question to ‘who did Jesus die for.’ This is an unfortunate choice for which there is no biblical direction. Not one Scripture verse is available to prove that Jesus died for everyone or that He died for only some. Here is what the Bible does say about for whom or what Christ died.
Rom 5:6 - For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Rom 5:8- But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 1 Corinthians 8:11- And on your knowledge the weak brother will fall, he for whom Christ died. 1 Corinthians 15:3- For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. . . Jesus died for the ungodly, for us, for the weak brother, for our sins. No where is there any reference to Him dying for everyone. Nor any reference that He died only for certain ones. To divide and separate Christians into two camps on this question is not only foolish. It is fatal for fellowship.
But the discussion regarding the atonement is older than that question. More ancient than the unlimited and limited labels which fell into the church’s lap in the 1600’s. Irenaus, in the early 2nd century, taught that Christ’s death provided a ransom payment to purchase Christians from slavery. A hundred years later Origen claimed that the Devil received the payment. Augustine who began teaching theology in the late 4th century was one of the first church fathers to articulate a sacrificial atonement theory. Others developed significant ideas after him. Particularly relevant today is the conflict that grew between Anselm and Abelard in the early 1100’s.
Anselm of Canterbury wrote of the need for atonement and suggested that since God’s honor was offended by sin, God received the payment Christ made. His contemporary Peter Abelard, who had his own share of moral lapses, removed any idea of propitiation from the atonement. He did not believe that Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious, nor that ransom was involved. Atonement was only significant, in his view, because of the way it changed man. As far as he was concerned no atonement was made until man was changed. And the change that occurred was simply a demonstration of the greatness of God’s love. Christ persuades men by the power of love to follow Him. Christ died primarily, not as an act of obedience to the father, nor to remove the penalty of sin, but to show how much he loves. Now you might say, isn’t that the message of John 3:16? That verse certainly is about God’s love for the world but the Cross is senseless without the reality of sin.
This is why Abelard’s atonement is relevant today. He makes man the heart of the Cross. It’s not about how dreadful is sin; it’s about how dear is love. And this is the message of too many churches today. Call them emerging or seeker sensitive- not fully emerged- the point is still the same. If Christ’s atonement was simply to prove His love than the church must not do anything to cloud the cross’ shadow. Man is the center of much ministry today. Abelard, unfortunately, would be pleased. In stead of trying to answer the unanswerable question 'for whom did Jesus die' we should be working hard to tell as many people as possible that sin keeps mankind from heaven but Jesus died to remove its penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment