On the Nature and Extent of the Atonement -- A Look at Paul's Doctrine of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 - Kim Riddlebarger

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------

The author of today's article intends to explain the Calvinistic doctrine of "Limited Atonement," which is the idea that the scope of Christ's sacrificial death extends only to those God chose to be saved (the Elect.) 

Limited Atonement is one of of the five "doctrines of grace" represented by the acronym TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

We are sorry to write about Calvinism again, but these largely useless doctrines are pursued with obsessive diligence by Calvinists. They are always teaching them. In fact, they will never teach the Bible unless they can explain some aspect of Calvinism. We call these doctrines useless because they simply have no application. No change to any privilege or obligation we have as Christians is affected by Calvinism.

And, the author writes almost 1450 words, yet no Bible verses are quoted. None. Zero. It continues to astonish us how these so-called Bible teachers can go on and on about what the Bible means but never quote it.

We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

Shortly after I released an episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast on 2 Corinthians 5:14-6:2 entitled “God Was in Christ,” a discussion began on social media regarding the matter of “hypothetical universalism” and the question of whether or not this view is compatible with Reformed orthodoxy. The Synod of Dort said “no” to that proposal in the first refutation of errors under the second head of doctrine. So does Paul.

In 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, (Let's quote it:

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We challenge the reader to refer back to this frequently to see if the author's assertions are found in the text. We are confident that the reader will agree with us that these ideas are nowhere to be found.)

Paul's focus falls upon what reconciliation accomplishes for God’s people. This is Paul's indicative (we are reconciled to God through the death of Jesus) to a congregation in Corinth which had tolerated false apostles who saught (sic) to undermine Paul’s apostolic authority as well as the gospel he preached. Paul’s imperative is found in 2 Corinthians 5:20—we implore you, "be reconciled." Paul is, in effect, saying “do not listen to such teachers.” To a church in turmoil, Paul urged the Corinthians to stand upon the gospel which he preached to them previously so as to be at peace with God. Why? Today is the day of salvation (i.e., the age of salvation). This is the context for a portion of my exposition of the passage, reproduced below.
______________________________________________

For Paul, everything centers upon Christ’s love for sinners. Paul is convinced (he has “concluded” – κρίναντας, krinatas), that even as all have died because of Adam’s fall into sin–which is the reason why “our bodily tents” wear out (*2 Corinthians* 5:1) and our jars of clay deteriorate (*2 Corinthians* 4:7)—Jesus has died for all. The fall of Adam brought a horrible calamity upon our race–sin, and its wages which is the curse and death. (What curse is that? What kind of death? Please explain.)

But the death of Jesus saves us from what Adam did to us and to our race. (Adam acted with malice?) 

Jesus is said to have died for “all”– a group which many take to refer to the whole of humanity. Mark Seifrid, as but one example, describes the cross as a universal event without a universal salvation–a “riddle” as he calls it.[1]

But I take Paul to be referring to those for whom Christ is accomplishing his redemptive work– “for their sake.” (This is in quotes. Did Paul write this somewhere? Is this a Bible verse? The author is making an important claim about his Calvinism, but the source of this claim is apparently a secret. Please explain.)

Jesus died and was raised, overturning the curse (Curse?)

on the behalf of God’s elect (God's elect? Who are these? Please explain.)

—which is the case if Christ’s work is substitutionary. (Christ's death was not substitutionary, it was sacrificial. His spilled blood is sufficient. Nothing else is needed.)

Colin Kruse expresses the sense of this as, “only because Christ is the incarnate Son of God could the death of one be for all. Only the death of this one could redeem us from the curse of the law; (Is this the curse to which the author was referring? Let's do the author's work for him: 

Ga. 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”)

the death of a mere human being could never achieve this.”[2] There is no limit placed upon the sufficiency of Christ’s death to save all—if the Father had chosen to save all, (Here's some more Calvinism creeping in. Implicit in this is that God chose to send some to hell while saving others. Thus the ones God did not choose are already under His wrath and doomed from the beginning. Therefore the beneficial effects of Jesus' death excludes these people because of God's preselected wrath.)

then Jesus’s death would have been sufficient to save all. (Notice how the author speculates on hypotheticals about his doctrine. Jesus' death would have been enough for everybody, but tough luck for those who weren't chosen.)

But Paul is clear that those for whom Jesus dies (No, those for whom Jesus saves.)

no longer live for themselves, but they live for the one who died for them. They now are said to live for Jesus. (Who says this? Is this something found in the Bible? Where might that be?)

Thus the efficacy/extent of the atonement is limited by God’s purpose and applied to those for whom Christ has died. (Some theological sleight-of-hand here. Presuming his premise to reach his conclusion, the author just drops it in our laps as if he's proved his case.)

There are two disputed theological issues here–the extent and the nature of the atonement.[3] The first issue is the question of the extent (or intention) of Christ’s death. Did Jesus die for all people (potentially saving all), or for the elect only (actually saving the elect)? (Here's the second meention of the Elect, again with no explanation. 

Let's allow Paul to answer: 

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 

Ro. 6:10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

1Ti. 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

So, did Jesus die for all, or just the Elect? Well, the reader has his answer, from the Bible.)

The standard objection to “particular redemption” (a Reformed distinctive which holds that Christ’s death is effectual for the elect only) is raised by this passage. (Apparently the author still talking about  2 Corinthians 5:17-21, a passage he has yet to quote. So we are unable to determine which part of the passage raises the issue to which he refers.)

[4] “How can you as a Calvinist hold to the notion that Jesus did not die for all (each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age), when Paul says Jesus did die for `all’”? Fair question. (Prepare yourself for more theological sleight-of-hand...)

We can answer the main exegetical objection by asking the question “whom does Adam represent?” (Adam doesn't "represent" anyone. He was a real man, the first man, who sinned and was sentenced to death. Thus all his progeny, including us, are born into the curse of death. Dead people sin and need a Savior to rescue them from death.)

The answer is that Adam represents all of humanity (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). As the old saying goes, “in Adam’s fall, sinned we all.” But whom does Jesus represent? (Jesus also doesn't represent anyone. He is the victor over the curse of death, accomplishing the forgiveness of sin. His blood washes us clean, and the Holy Spirit breathes new life into us.)

All of humanity? The same group which has fallen in Adam and are now subject to the curse and death? Or does Jesus represent those in the new covenant, who have died to the world, who possess resurrection life, and who participate in the new creation?[5] Paul teaches us it is the latter. (Where? Is it a secret? Please explain.)

The second issue (the nature of the atonement) explains the first (the extent), in part, by looking to the biblical concept of federal headship–a consideration of those who are represented by Adam (those who die), in contrast with those who are represented by Christ (those who live). (This idea of representation appears to be a crucial cog in the Calvinistic machine. It's not found in the Bible, but it is the necessary framework imposed over the clear statements of the Bible in order to obscure them from those Christians who are caught in the Calvinistic thrall.)

The Adam-Christ distinction is reflected throughout Paul’s writings when he addresses the nature of Christ’s redemptive work.[6] As Paul will tell us in verses (*2 Corinthians chapter 5* ) 17-21, through his shed blood, Christ’s death accomplishes reconciliation between God and sinners–Jesus establishes of a bond of peace with God for all those for whom he dies.[7]

There is nothing here which permits us to say, “Jesus reconciles sinners to God, but only if they do not unreconcile themselves through unbelief or some other sinful act which they commit.” (Who says this? What does it mean? What exactly is the point? Please explain.)

There is nothing here which remotely implies that Jesus makes reconciliation possible if only those dead in sin do “x” “y” and “z.” No, according to verses 17-21, Jesus “reconciles” (καταλλάσσων – katallasso) sinners to God.[8] The aorist tense in verse 18 indicates a completed act. Jesus dies for all those said to be “in Christ.” (How can anyone be in Christ [i.e. the "Elect"] until Jesus actually dies on the cross?)

Those who argue for any of the forms of universalism, (Who does this, and why is it relevant?)

often ignore the unintended consequences of their position and are left with something like Seifrid’s “riddle.” How does a universal, and potential reconciliation and non-imputation (??? What's this?)

of sin not save all people if it is universal in its extent? (Is this the opposition view? Is the author going to examine their arguments or explain them? No?)

You must limit the atonement’s efficacy–Christ dies for people he does not save. (If He died for all, then it necessarily means He died for the saved and unsaved both, as the Scriptures we cited above tell us.

So how does this limit the atonement's efficacy? Unknown, for the author doesn't explain.)

The Reformed take the other path and limit the atonement’s extent but not its efficacy. (Why is this better? Please explain. Oh. We've reached the end.)

Christ saves all those for whom he died.

This is part of an extended discussion of Paul’s doctrines of reconciliation, substitutionary atonement, imputation, forgiveness, and new creation. You can find the aforementioned episode of the Blessed Hope Podcast here.

_________________________________________

[1] Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, 244.

[2] Kruse, 2 Corinthians, 166.

[3] Granted, Paul is not discussing either of these issues here–they arise much later in church history. But his teaching becomes the basis for this later discussion and debate. The implications of what Paul says here cannot be dismissed from contemporary discussions of the nature and extent of the atonement. See the helpful discussion of the debate in Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3.460-475.

[4] According to B. B. Warfield, “Calvinism insists that the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are saved. . . . The Calvinist is he who holds with full consciousness that God the Lord, in his saving operations, deals not with mankind at large, but particularly with the individuals who are being saved.” See B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Avinger, YX: Simpson Publishing Company, 1989), 89.

[5] G. K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023), 474.

[6] Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 420.

[7] An important response to a universal or hypothetical universalism interpretation of this text was offered by John Owen in the seventeenth century (1647). See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlsile PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 227.

[8] Harris gives us substantial background regarding the use of the term. “The word group that relates to “reconciliation” is exclusively Pauline within the NT: καταλλάσσω occurs six times, ἀποκαταλλάσσω three times, and καταλλαγή four times. Only one of these thirteen is not theological in import. It is little wonder, therefore, that some scholars regard reconciliation as the “leading theme” or “center” of Paul’s thought and ministry. Basically, αταλλαγή means “exchange,” especially of money or merchandise. In the papyri it is used most often of the changing of money from one currency into another (Spicq 2.263). Metaphorically it denoted the exchange or substitution of peace for war, of love for anger, or of friendship for enmity. As a Pauline theological term depicting the relationship of God with humans, “reconciliation” denotes a transformation of relations, not in the sense that original friendly relations are restored (humans are by nature at enmity with God, Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:1–3) but in the sense that friendly relations now replace former hostility.” See Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 435-436.