It is important to say that throughout all Christianity, there has been very little substantive agreement on the doctrine of atonement. Take for example, an excerpt from an article in Wikipedia which provides some definition and demonstrates how Calvinists, themselves, can disagree about the particulars of atonement.
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 the general Calvinist view of predestination. Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury andThomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, known as penal substitution, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by thesins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred.
The Calvinist view of predestination teaches that God created a group of people, who would not and could not choose him (see total depravity), to be saved apart from their works or their cooperation, and those people are compelled by God’s irresistible grace to accept the offer of the salvation achieved in the atonement of Christ.
The Calvinist atonement 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 affects 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 Baptists, 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.
With an atmosphere of general disagreement, a careful consideration of assumptions is required. Charles Partee’s attention to Book II of the Institutes proves an excellent and careful examination of Calvin’s confession on Christ’s work….further systematized to a doctrine of atonement by Calvinists. Partee notes that one assumption at work when developing a doctrine of atonement is an artificial separation between God-the-offended and Christ-the-redeemer. Of great significance, for those who appreciate Calvin apart from Calvinist systematizing, is that Calvin never separated the two.
Rather, Calvin strives to join the two together. Christ’s work, for Calvin is at least three-fold. Christ works as prophet, king and priest. “Christ as prophet presents God to us; as king Christ rules over us; and as priest he represents God to us.”(163) Thus, Calvin has a reconciling emphasis rather than a theory of atonement. Again, Calvin’s priority, Partee notes, is union with Christ not Christ’s work apart or on behalf of human beings.
As stated in previous blogs, there is a difference between the unsystematized Calvin who is comfortable with tensions and even contradictions and the systematized Calvinist school that rose up out of appreciation for his teachings. It is not only Partee that believes that Calvin himself offers no real doctrine of atonement. Kristine A. Culp, in her work, Vulnerability and Glory, attends in detail to Calvin but does not mention the doctrine of atonement in those details. Instead she explicates Calvin’s belief in the process-oriented work of the church that can be transformational for the person of faith. Culp hones in on Calvin’s notion of divine accommodation which happens through the vulnerable and imperfect church that faithfully strives to exemplify the work of Christ. I wonder can her emphasis be brought together with Partee’s? So, rather than a doctrine of atonement, perhaps Calvin was really presenting a trajectory of reconciliation from the Creator to Jesus to Christ to the church to the seeking individual. The trajectory may even become a cycle when individuals return energy and praise to their Creator. Trajectory implies process.
Process theology is offended by both words “limited” and “atonement”. We process theologians believe not only in the value of all humanity regardless of denomination or religion, we also believe in the value of all creation. Thus the word limited will not do. Process theology refuses the Calvinists idea of election that God chooses some by privilege or by lottery (this was discussed in “The 2nd Petal of TULIP: Whose Going to Heaven” blog).
Additionally, process theologians do not believe in the substitutionary or satisfaction theories of atonement. As Epperly notes: “Contrary to much “orthodox” Christology, process theology contends that God did not want Jesus to die, but desire that the world might believe his message of God’s reign of shalom. ….Process theology asserts that God truly suffered with Jesus on the cross. God envisaged a different future for Jesus than rejection and brutality.” (Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed, 73) Let me close by saying that not only do Calvin and process thought have a common disinterest regarding a doctrine of limited atonement. They also have a common interest. This common interest invests in a transformation of the human experience to know a unity with Christ.
Process theology provides a specification to Calvin’s writings on the work of Christ. “God does not operate from outside of the universe, violating its rules and suspending its laws to achieve God’s purposes; rather God works within all things, joining order, and novelty in achieving God’s vision for the universe and humankind. Process theology affirms that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world’ (2 Corinthians 5:19).” (Epperly, 64). Creative transformation is the term given to process theology by one of its premiere theologians, John Cobb. Creative transformation is the joining of order and novelty lived out by Jesus of Nazareth emanating throughout the universe in a search for wholeness.
I believe that behind the idea of limited atonement lies a reformer and teacher’s original intent that all would experience unity within the scriptural record of Christ. Beyond the reformer and teacher, lies process theology’s continue to reform our thinking for greater relevance and faithfulness to God today!
Read Full Post »