Christ's Redemption and Atonement

Hey all,

Kind of re-hashing a former thread here concerning Limited Atonement, but I wanted to begin with a statement that Allen made.

I honestly in almost 15 years of being a Christian have never heard such a statement nor have I ever percieved such a distinction from Scripture. How such a distinction can be made I am not sure. Now this is just my lack of study in the intricacies of the debate. I found that John Owen had dealt with this in his un-refuted essay entitled "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is a polemical work defending Limited Atonement, also called Particular Redemption.

Based on Allen's quote, one could right say he believes in Limited Redemption, but Universal Atonement. Doesn't this distinction (I don't think it could be properly called a separation) is odd? How do we distinguish between Redemption and Atonement? Do we have a biblical justification for this?

I would assume what is meant here is that the actual redemption is limited to those have it applied to themselves through their faith. It in effect is saying, all are atoned for, but only those to whom the atonement is applied are redeemed, and therefore limits redemption.

In chapter IV of Owen's work, we find him dealing with the distinction of impetration and application. He writes,

"They say, then, that in the oblation of Christ, and concerning the good things by him procured, two things are to be considered--First, The impetration, or obtaining of them; and secondly, The application of them to particular persons. "The first," say they, "is general, in respect to all. Christ obtained and procured all good things by his deah of (that is to say, from) his Father,--reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness of sins,--for all and every man in the world, if they will believe and lay hold upon him: but in respect of application, they are actually bestowed and conferred but on a few; because but a few believe, whichi is the condition on which they are bestowed." p. 110, Banner of Truth Trust.

Of the Arminians Owen writes,

"First, Some of them say that Christ, by his death and passion, did absolutley, according to the intention of God, purchase for all and every man, dying for them, remission of sins and reconciliation with God, or a restitution into a state of grace and favour; all which shall be actually benefical to them, provided that they do believe. So the Arminians" p.110

A few other variances Owen mentions but makes this final comment on the matter,

"And sundry other ways there are whereby men express their conceptions in this business. The sum of all comes to this, and the weight of all lies upon that distinction which we before recounted;--namely, that in respect o impetration, Christ obtained redemption and reconcilation for all; in repect of application, it is bestowed only on them who do believe and continue therein." p.111

Now Allen seems to be saying something a little differently than Owen has explained of other's views, and particularly Owen's use of Redemption within the atonement. But so far, Owen's commentary is the closest thing I have found in a distinction being made to what Allen has proposed.

But I would like to know a few things from Allen regarding his statement:

1. One what Scriptural basis do you make the distinction between Christ's atonement and His redemption?

2. Explain how an Atonement, in our case the blood of Jesus Christ, can exceed the extent of the Redemption? Let add some clarification. The object of Redemption must be by your limitation, believers. This is that which was purchased by the blood (atonement) of Christ. At the risk of sounding irreverant, did Christ over-pay for the purchased possession? You see then my dilemma. How can the payment exceed what was purchased?

3. How does your distinction reconcile with the fact that Christ came to establish a New Covenant with His people? In other words, if the Atonement is universal, and a the blood of Christ IS the blood of the New Covenant, then what has been established with those who finally perish?


I will end off here, though I have more questions and will share more of Owen's refutation of the distinction he wrote of. But I want to make sure that I am understanding the distinction you have made, Allen, and how it might agree or disagree with the impetration and application disctinction.

 

One wish it were that simple. But it doesn't make sense Amy. If the application of the things which Christ purchased are the end for why they are purchased or procured, then those for whom Christ procured them must be applied to all of them, or else Christ has failed in His purpose. And this is inconcieveable.

The application MUST be the end from the beginning to obtain those things which the death of Christ procured. Think about it. If the applying of those things were not the end, then Christ aimed at nothing. Then Christ's death might have been of none effect. If the application of the things purchased where not to the applying of them, then it might have been that not a single soul would be saved.

But Christ came into the world "to save sinners" and to "bring many sons unto glory" Was God the Father in sending the Son not certain to what end, or application, would be of the things the Son purchased by His death? God forbid! As Owen puts it:

"Did he appoint a Saviour without thought of them that were to be saved? a Redeemer, not determining who should be redeemed? Did he resolve of a means, not determining the end? It is an assertion opposite to all the glorious properties of God."

To the Arminians and non-cals I say, your means and application argument utterly fails both Scripture and reason. By reason I have shown by what I wrote above. And by Scripture consider the following that unite and does not separate both the procurment AND application:

"By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," there is the application, "for he shall bear their iniquities," there is the impetration. Jesus Christ HAS justified all those whose iniquites He bore.

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement and our peace was upon him; and by his striped we are healed." Isaiah 53

And this, "and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." For whom did Christ intercede? And how can you separate even this, His intercession, from his Redemption/Atonement? And His intercession is for the application of those things which He Himself has procured.

"By the righteousness of one (impetration) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" application. Romans 5

As Owen rightly concludes, "That for whom God gives His Son, to them, in Him, He freely gives all things; therefore, all things obtained by His death must be bestowed, and are, on them for whom He died." p.113

 

Thanks Amy. When you actually deal with my post(s) then I will reply to you, rather than responding to the same information again.

 

This was answered in my above posts. Christ procured salvation for those for whom He died. He actually and truly accomplished it to save them from their sins. It is quite reasonable then that He would make application of it by His grace and ways in bringing them to repentance and faith in Him.

Obvioulsy the Lord intended to save by His grace through faith. And this He did in Christ before the world began.

Why do you insiste that 1 John 2:2 must mean each and every person? Why must "whole world" here mean each and every person? Do you think this means the same thing in every place? Take this very epistle for example. "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 5:19

Do you think John meant to include himself in this statement? Or the Christians to whom he was writing? Or other Christians who were at that time in the world? Certainly there is a limitation to "whole world" in 1 John 5:19.

And this you say, "Christ did all the work, but we will have to believe." either diminishes the complete work of Christ or else you see believing as something separate from Christ, not included in His work, and is a work of our own to which we add to the finished work of Christ, the apporbation of it being left to us. But I think your saying, because of the example your using, is the application of it, which I have already before proved by Scripture is not left to man, but is also Christ's work.

Yes, the blood needed to be applied to the door posts. And truly the Lord Jesus is our Passover. That these Israelites believed the Lord is evident that every one of them did as the Lord commanded, for it is written "And the children of Israel went away, and did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they." Ex 12:28. And so all Israel was saved.

And Israel is all that will ever be saved. We who believe in Jesus Christ are the Israel of God. And there is not one of us who will be finally destroyed with the wicked. Just as God sent Moses to deliver Israel from the Eqpytians, so He sent Christ Jesus to save His chosen people out of every nation, tongue, tribe. Not of Jews only, but also of the whole world.

-RB