I don't understand, Roger?-sufficient for all efficient for the elect that is definite atonement.

Consider a portion from D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2000), 73-79

"I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter)."
DA Carson

Also have you read G. Michael Thomas, The extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536-1675), Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997)?

Also did you listen to the Capstone concise lectures by Gary Shavey?

But what Carson and Piper don't say, and Driscoll does, is that Christ "atoned" for all. That is the key. We can both cite passages of Reformed theologians essentially saying sufficient for all but efficient for the elect, and that even the non-elect receive benefits of the death of Christ apart from atonement. But I would challenge you to show me where a recognized Reformed theologian has spoken of atonement (reconciliation) applying to the non-elect.

I hadn't even heard of G. Michael Thomas' book until this weekend, so I haven't read it. The only review of the book I can find is rather brief and not encouraging.

I haven't listened to any of Shavey's lecture. My point here was only to interact with Driscoll's material, and from what I've been able to find this is the only material which deals with his view of atonement in any depth.

See my post that you linked to--at bottom-- Gary Shavey is the Mars Hill elder in charge of theology-it sheds light on Driscoll's view-since it is in fact the view of the elders at Mars Hill--I don't believe it says the Christ atones for the sins of the whole world.

DA Carson references the G Michael Thomas book in his treatment on the extent of the atonement with a footnote as a treatment of the atonement thru history.

I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all


DA Carson

Does Driscoll say that Christ reconciled/atoned for all?

Yes:

1) He says he believes what Arminians believe- which is that Christ atoned for all.

2) He says he believes in both Unlimited and Limited Atonement. That's as straight forward as he could get.

- Carson's right that we should agree Christ died for all. Everyone receives benefits from Christ's death. At least one of those benefits is believed to be limited only to the elect, that of atonement. Carson is only making the former point, not commenting on the latter.

Hey Roger,

Thanks for the blogpost. Just some noteworthy considerations:

1. Here is a blog I stumbled upons that lays an interesting case for (if I understand correctly) limited, unlimited atonement. Eric Svendsen is Founder and Director of New Testament Research Ministries and a Tutor in New Testament at Greenwich School of Theology, U.K.

2. Could it be said that just because the L in the reformed TULIP is modified it doesn't have to mean that it is a de facto a modified arminianism but maybe a modified calvinism. This could attributed to an accidental vs. substantial change in the TULIP for it were a substantial change then it would cease to be Calvinism and be something else. Rather, since its only a modification of the L then it should be appropriately categorized under the rubric of Calvnism proper. What ye think?

David M

Thanks David,

Yea, it does look like his view is in line with Driscoll's. They should exchange notes. Unfortunately it looks like he also suffers from misapplying atonement.

I think in the context of atonement alone, referring to Driscoll's position as modified Arminianism is accurate. However, if we look at the big picture, as you're doing, I'd agree that it is more of a modified Calvinism. As he states in the audio, he holds the other main points; he argues for predestination and election. But even his use of "modified Calvinism" is a way of saying he's breaking off from the traditional Reformed view.

Hey guys, I added this as a comment on the earlier thread, but thought it was relevant here as well.

Bruce Ware gave permission for me to post his document outlining various positions on the atonement. The third option, letter C, un/limited atonement or multiple intentions view I find to be very close to that of the elders at Mars Hill. The pdf can be found here. It is in outline form but touches all the texts and positions quite well. Now one can say "this is not the reformed position." Dr. Ware is a reformed scholar who holds firmly to the doctrines of grace and as strong a postion on meticulous divine providence that one will find...a fine infralapsarian and a great teacher as well. In my opinion it is a bit strange to call the unlimited/limited atonement view "modified Arminianism."

That's certainly interesting, thanks :) His view is close to Driscoll's, but Dr. Ware claims that he does not hold everything Arminians do, while Driscoll does (which is why I'd say his is more of a modified Arminianism).

Of Dr. Ware's arguments, I'd say his 5th is the most compelling- the cosmic triumph argument. However, I'm not sure sin needs to be paid for by Christ in order for it to be considered conquered. Isn't eternity in hell payment for sin that Christ has conquered? The reconciling act of atonement is to bring peace between God and man, but peace is not brough between God and the non-elect, and Dr. Ware (I believe) would acknowledge this. So he seems to be bringing another (biblical) aspect of reconciliation. Interesting...

Fair enough brother. I think the Arminian statement is stumbling you. I think he is saying that Arminians limit the atonement more than the 4/5 does. I think it's a Driscollism. I am wondering if you heard Shavey? Being the associate of Driscoll I think he does a good(albeit boring) job trying to explain what the Elders(including Driscoll) believe.They shouldnt say the Arminian thing. I agree maybe thats why Dr.Ware is going up there for?

I send my TMS buddies to this blog to see an example of Taking a stand for the truth but doing it in love. I still remember STR and Greg K (and you all I presume) sitting down with the leaders of Emergent. I was blessed by the message which is we may disagree but without objectifying our opponenents.

Blessings Bro
Scott

The interesting thing is that John Piper is the source of the quote "We preach everything an Arminian would, we just go further." I am almost certain that this was in one of the messages given at the 2004 Reformission Conference where Piper was the keynote. I think perhaps Driscoll grabbed on to that phrase. All that is meant there is the Calvinist, even of the John Piper variety, can say "Come to Jesus, anyone who is thirsty, come and drink. Come and buy without price, believe upon the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved." Any Calvinist who believes in a bone fide offer for all (ala Piper, Hoekema) can preach like this - which Piper says "was preaching everything the Arminian would" - but we go further. We tell everyone that they cannot save themselves, we tell the new convert that even their belief and faith was the the result of the regenerating work of the Spirit God. We tell them that they were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, not because of their self-worth, merit or good deeds, but because of God's own mercy and good pleasure. We tell them that all of their lives are ordered by infinite mercy and justice and a loving Father. We also tell them not to become hypers who will not go and preach the gospel to all ethne, for fear of having the name Jesus touch the ears of non-elect. We do believe much of what Arminians believe - we jut go much, much further. God can and does "change people's minds" and "make them" believe. This is why we pray for people to come to faith. We believe in man's total depravity, bondage of the will, and total inability to do on his own what he must do - believe upon Jesus for his salvation. We believe that the cross purchased for God his very own elect sheep. That election and the atoning death by itself does not save, but faith in Christ's atoning work, by the elect, in space and time, brings the elect to God.

I personally believe that the multiple intentions view as articulated by Dr. Ware is very sound. I think it should be taught as the multiple intentions God had for the cross, with only one of them being actual atonement. And in Ware's view this intention is to pay for the sins of the elect. I have called it 4.2 point Calvinism, with .8 (the other four intentions) being about all the God has wrought through the Cross of Christ in addition to definite atonement.

Scott, I know Shavey, he is a friend of mine. Don't hate on his presentation style :) He is Mars Hill's theology geek, not its primary orator. But you are right, the unlimited/limited MP3s are a little monotone, but far from boring. Afterall how can anyone be bored hearing a guy talk about the response to the Remonstrants. Church history and sound doctrine are just too sweet to be boring.

Amen Good Points Reid and I think Gary could take me -didn't he play college ball?

In their capstone lectures they attempt to de-limit the atonement by applying it to the same extent that Colossians does "reconciled all things through the blood of his cross." Very few evangelical or Reformed formulations deal with this text.

This:

"In this post I will simply be providing evidence that his view is not the Reformed view, not arguing whether or not his view is correct."

Is not the same as this:

"However, where Driscoll errors is in calling this atonement."

Or this:

"Such a view, apart from not making any sense, is not the Reformed view."

Thanks for a great post. As a reformed pastor who resonates with much of Driscoll's missiology this is great information. The discussion here, along with the helpful info links for support is the reason why I blog, and why I'll send folks this way. Keep up the good work.

I'll now have something new to listen out for as I head to Piper's place next month for the Above All Earthly Powers conference where Driscoll will be speaking.

Hello all…I’m a first time Ateam blogger. I really enjoy this conversation and find it…and others like it…to be profitable. My intent is not to tear down or to be divisive. I love what God is doing in Seattle through Mars Hill and the work of Mark Driscoll and the elders of that Church. I’ve been visiting Mars Hill every time I’m in Seattle since 2002. I love the vibe of that place…especially when they were all crammed in that little neighborhood church with 1 legal parking space back in the day.

Anyway…I agree with Roger’s statement that Mark’s view of unlimited, limited atonement is not the historic Reformed understanding of the scope and effect of Christ’s atonement. I’ve read many articulate comments on this subject here on the blog, but I believe that we’re dealing with a misunderstanding of the word atonement.

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines atonement as “The death of Jesus on the cross, which effects salvation as the reestablishment of the relationship between God and sinners.”

Wayne Grudem defines atonement as “The work Christ did in His life and death to earn our salvation.”

Louis Berkhof wrote in great depth about the person and work of Jesus in making atonement for His people according to His office as “Our Great High Priest” which also includes Christ’s continual intercession on our behalf and not that of the world (John 17:9). I will not quote from Berkhof as he did not write in sound byte fashion.

If we understand the Reformed view of the atonement as being limited in scope…to the elect only…and if we understand that in the atonement, Christ secured propitiation, expiation and redemption all of which produce reconciliation with God, then it would seem to me that any other benefits from Christ’s life, death, resurrection and intercession that do not manifest as salvation, are something other than atoning in nature. In my simple mind, atonement = salvation.

Now I believe that we can agree that all men benefit in some way because of Christ’s particular redemption of the elect. Driscoll did a great job of speaking of the grace that has flown out to all people through God’s Church as a result of the salvation of God’s elect. It would seem to me though that any benefits that do not produce salvation are not consistent with the doctrine of the atonement, but are reflective of God’s common grace that is poured out through the Church that was purchased by Christ’s blood. So if the unlimited nature of Driscoll’s unlimited/limited atonement does not include the secure salvation of an unlimited number of people…it would seem to me that the salvific nature of the atonement is being misrepresented.

Perhaps the Mars Hill elders have adopted this view in order to make what they believe to be a bona fide gospel offer. If this is the case, my question is, do we find a similar theology leading to a similar gospel call in the New Testament? I don't find an apostle in the NT saying “Jesus made atonement for you, so believe.” Does this make their calls to believe and repent any less bona fide? Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15 "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." To the Philippian jailer Paul said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:31)

In the Mars Hill discourse in Acts 17 Paul never says, or hints, that Jesus died for all...he simply made the case that Jesus is the Christ and then closed with "but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31)

Peter's message on Pentecost never mentions that Jesus died for all people. He simply testifies that God put Jesus forward to be crucified and that God raised Him up. "Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about 3,000 souls." (Acts 2:36-47)

So based on Scripture, it seems to me that a genuine gospel offer must include a teaching that Jesus is God and that the only way to peace with God is through faith in the finished work of Jesus and that true faith must lead us to repentance.

If Scripture is our rule... it doesn’t seem to me that we need to ever tell someone that "Jesus died to make atonement for you", for indeed we cannot make that claim and remain faithful to the plain teaching and examples of the apostles. We simply must share that "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost."

I also believe that in making his case for “modified Calvinism”, in His message “Unlimited, Limited Atonement”, Mark Driscoll made the claim that his view of the atonement was the same as that of his hero, C.H. Spurgeon. I know that Spurgeon held to Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. Spurgeon wrote, “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe that we can preach the gospel…unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called.” (Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. I, Ch.XVI, p.172.)

Concerning Calvinism and the scope of the atonement, Spurgeon also wrote, “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question-Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say “No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if”-and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”

I hope that we can continue this conversation. I see this forum as a great place for me to share and to learn, with and from, others who wrestle with the details and implications of our Christian faith.

Blessings.

This is where Driscoll (and Piper and Carson) would say they would rather be biblical than have to conform to what other Reformed theologians have said. That's great and all, but when Scripture contradicts someone's own systematic interpretation of Scripture, Scripture wins. I personally don't think any of these guys (including Bruce Ware) fall outside of the Reformed view on the Atonement. If there is any difference, it's semantics.

"This is where Driscoll (and Piper and Carson) would say they would rather be biblical than have to conform to what other Reformed theologians have said. That's great and all, but when Scripture contradicts someone's own systematic interpretation of Scripture, Scripture wins."

I agree that they would say that, and I'm in agreement with that as well. The post was in response to the notion that Driscoll is fully in the Reformed tradition. The point here is that the atonement is a significant point in which he's not in line with Reformed tradition. Whether or not that's good or bad is a wholly different question I tried, at least originally, not to address.