One of the doctrines of reformed theology is Specific Atonement. This doctrine troubles many Christians and even some that would fall under the reformed camp.
First let me explain the doctrine, and briefly its counterpart, Universal Atonement. Both of these views relate to Christ death on the cross.
The universal view of the atonement simply stated is this: when Christ died on the cross he bore the sins for all men and all the sins of all people were punished by God through Christ substitutionary death; regardless if the person comes to faith in Christ or not, their sins and the wrath they deserved were still bore by the savior on Calvary.
The specific view of atonement simply stated is this: when Christ died on the cross he bore the sins and punishment for only those who are elect therefore leaving the sins of those who won't come to faith in Christ unpunished and still deserving to be addressed by the wrath of God.
These are the basic tenets of each view. With that given what are we to make and what does adhering to one of these views mean to the believer.
First we believe that God is a just and requires sins to be punished and that is why Christ had to die. My question for those holding to the universal view is this, if the sins of all men were punished then why does God repunish these sins by sending unsaved people to hell? Even though they have never accepted Christ there sins have still already been punished on the cross, God sending them to hell to repunish sins that Christ already bore the punishment for doesn't seem to be just to the individual or to Christ Himself.
Holding to the specific view is much more logical and consistent with the character of God. The sins that Christ bore the punishment for on the cross were those of the people that God has set apart for Himself to be His people. All that these sins deserve has been taken care of at Calvary. This applied to the elect’s life when he is regenerated and confesses Christ. Consequently the people whose sins have not been punished by God in the form of the crucifixion will never come to Christ; thus when they die and stand before God they will have nothing on their behalf stating that their sins have been paid for or punished. God sending them into hell is exactly what their sins deserve and shows the justice of God. They spend eternity being punished for sins that have previously not been punished.
This is not to say the Christ blood isn't powerful enough to be applied to all the sins of all people, it just is not. I think C.H. Spurgeon said it best, "Christ death is sufficient for all but efficient for some."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think both views are off. When Christ died and rose again, sins were not forgiven; forgiveness only comes when the sacrifice is accepted as the only possible way of salvation. So obviously, the universal view is off because when Christ died, all people were not forgiven. BUT, we know that Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD (Jn. 4:42, 1 Jn. 4:14,2 Cor. 5:19) and that God desires ALL men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4 (not all types), 2:6, 4:10). Jesus' death was the ultimate atonement and propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2), but it is only that atonement if you believe it to be so. (Jn. 3:16, Jn. 6:47, Acts 16:31). I don't think Jesus' atonement of sins was universal or specific.
I agree that not everybody's sins are atoned for I am speaking strictly of sins being punished. If all sins were punished at the cross there would be no need for a hell.
Actually, I see a lot of verses that specifically address Christ dying for the sins of the world. I still think it's "sufficient, but efficent" regardless. I think unlimited atonement is biblical.
If you could point me to some of those I would appriciate it. I am not saying that smugly I would like to give them an honest look.
Post a Comment