Intro to the Atonement (pt 2)

After Theodore Beza died, an important document was put together now known as the Synod of Dort. According to Wilkipedia, “The Synod of Dort was a National Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618/19, by the Dutch Reformed Church, in order to settle a serious controversy in the Dutch churches initiated by the rise of Arminianism.” TULIP or the “5-Points of Calvinism” were officially formulated as a result of this Synod. Article three under the second heading of doctrine in the Synod of Dort states: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Dort rejected the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement and stated that the atonement was properly for the elect alone. The Synod of Dort seems to teach that the death of Christ was sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. Dr. Tom Nettles makes the following observation (see p. 302ff), “In his commentary on 1 John, Calvin, in harmony with the medieval Fathers, accepts this position.” Though Nettles himself rejects the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” argument, he seems to agree with Curt Daniel that this was in fact the preferred view of John Calvin, W. G. T. Shedd, Andrew Fuller, J. P. Boyce, A. A. Hodge and others (see By His Grace and For His Glory, pp. 302-05).

According to Nettles, “Two streams of though emerge from the writings of those who have defended limited atonement. We must not confuse either with those who purposefully rejected limited atonement. One stream, represented by such Baptists as Fuller in England and Boyce in the U.S; affirms both the sufficiency of the atonement in its nature to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to elect only in its intent. This probably represents the majority view among Calvinists.” This is the camp I currently find myself in, though I am very intrigued at the logical arguments presented in the second “stream.” Biblical exegesis will ultimately need to convince me of what view is most correct. Dr. Nettles goes on to say, “The second stream, represented by Booth in England and John Dagg in theUnited States, affirms that it is the nature of the atonement to save all for whom it is sufficient, and therefore its limitation in intent is necessarily a limitation of its sufficiency.” This is the preferred view of Dr. Nettles and many other Calvinist proponents today. We will examine these two views in greater detail in the days to come. Dr. Curt Daniel makes an important distinction between those holding a Four-Point view, (men like John Bunyan); those holding a Four-and-a-Half-Point view, (men like Richard Baxter); those holding a “Strict 5-Point” view, (men like John Owen); and those holding a “Supralapsarianism” view, (men like Theodore Beza). Daniel breaks these categories down even further on page 68 of his thesis, “The History and Theology of Calvinism.”

In summary, he notes “There is no one mainstream Reformed view regarding the extent of the atonement. The more Limited view has probably had more adherents, but then again, the Reformers (except Beza) all accepted the more Universal view.” It appears Dr. Daniel and Dr. Nettles would both include the sufficient for all efficient for the elect interpretation under the moderate/mainstream Calvinism category. Dr. Nettles would see this “unlimited in extent, limited in intent” interpretation as a fair (though not entirely accurate) 5-Point view. Now before we get to our essential “what sayeth the Scriptures” expository thoughts portion of this post I want to summarize the arguments of Nettles (limited in extent and intent view) and Daniel’s (unlimited in extent, limited in intent view). This post will be continued…