For whom did Christ die? The extent of the atonement.
I: My very honorable guests today are Rev. Dr. Andrew Louth of the University of Durham, the priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, and Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary, J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. Let’s go straight to the question that all of us are so anxious to hear your answers to. Is atonement limited or unlimited?
AL: The Eastern church always saw the atonement as unlimited.
MH: In the TULIP of Calvinism the “L” stands for the Limited Atonement.
I: What are the reasons that brought your denominations to the views so polarized?
MH: That view is by no means only our view. It refers to the first Christian thinkers like St. Augustine and others, reformers only developed it.
AL: I am sure my opponent will greatly support his view. However, I look at it from different angle. We are talking about the concepts that were first named in Greek, then Latin, we speak English here. Some things might be challenging to translate. Even the word atonement, which means “righting the wrong,” is used to translate “reconciliation”. Does the meaning suggest we are talking in legal terms only? I want to see more than that in the idea.
I: Very interesting. Would Mr. Horton like to talk about who Christ died for?
MH: The old formula “Christ’s death is sufficient for everyone but efficient for the elect” - is a great way to summarize it. However, no one can come to God and discover Christ did not die for them. It is limited because not everyone will be there. Saint Catharine of Sienna stated that God would permit some people to stay in their sins if they choose, although she felt that it would bring God even more glory if everyone is saved. But our assignment is still to preach to everyone.
AL: And we do need to pray for everyone.
I: That is great. Let’s do both. What’s the deal with the atonement?
MH: The idea of penal substitution is crucial. Christ died for our sins and took our punishment upon himself. We do believe he died for hmmm…, cosmos, this world too. He got our sins; we got His righteousness. That is the answer to the problem of the original sin and all sins we are personally responsible for. As the second Adam, he achieved recapitulation (becoming our sinless head instead of Adam who got us all into trouble). We need to emphasize that this justification is taken by faith. That is a good beginning.
I: That miracle happens to every believer; it is the beginning of a new life for everyone. I am especially grateful to Protestantism, which introduced me to that mystery that changed my life.
AL: No objection from my side to this. That is a huge thing. I saw a tendency in some Orthodox theologians to move away from the cross as a central point, and I disapprove of it. Christ’s death in our place is the fundamental truth. What makes me feel funny is that for the Westerners, this truth seems to tower over other things that are not of less importance. Luther got this justification by faith in Paul’s teaching, and it became central for him and his followers, but Paul emphasized other gravitational centers, too. I can’t get rid of the impression that Romans and Galatians are read as foundational and, say, Corinthians where the emphasis is on eucharist and transformation are seen as some additional instructions.
I: That is interesting. I recently heard from a young man about his doubts that the transformation is possible. Many of us face growth challenges when the blessings of the period right after the conversion are over, and we do not know where God is anymore. We know we belong to eternity but must live before we get there. We just don’t know what’s next. It was illuminating for me to realize we, and I personally, have a role to play in the unfolding of history. Dr. Louth, I like your image of two arcs. Can you talk about them?
AL: I will be delighted to. We must never forget that God had a glorious plan for His creation. Adam’s sin broke the plan to create the perfect unity of God and humans and shalom in the world. So, the more extensive and impressive arc runs from creation to deification, the glorious finale. Adam’s sin created the need for a minor arc that stretches from the fall to redemption and supports the grand arc. It repairs the more significant arc. In that way, it “atones” things, writes the wrong. It brings unity with God; linguistically, the word atonement can also be seen as “at-one-ment”.
I: How does Dr. Horton feel about those arcs? When I think of protestant construction, I would imagine, hmmm, a road with ups and downs. Creation was glorious; sin pushed us down, then the crescendo of the promise of Christ’s birth, the pinnacle at the cross and the mountain of resurrection, then the process about which Paul said, “work towards your salvation with fear and trembling” (there will be ups and downs here for sure), and of course the glorious finale that you call “consummation”, “glorification”, right?
HM: About that glorification, I want to add that some older reformers called it deification, we are no strangers to that word. I don’t use many images but I enjoy you and Rev. Dr. Louth doing so. I like logic and the language that explains things with categories. Yes, we do talk about the world moving towards consummation and glorification.
I: Great. What else do you think happened on the cross?
HM: The work of all three persons of the Trinity. Christ is a sacrifice and a Victor over evil, and the Spirit brings that redemption to us. It is not about the cooperation of God and humans. It is about the cooperation within Trinity. We can do nothing ourselves. Our salvation is God’s work and no one should fear their weakness. God’s unmeasurable love and mercy lead us to think the way we think.
AL: I quote the old Orthodox prayer about God’s might that is “beyond compare, and glory is beyond understanding, and mercy without measure, and love is beyond all telling.” From this abundance of mercy, we derive the idea of the unlimited atonement, leaving some room for mystery when it comes to the details of the issue. We see Christ as a teacher, healer too, and all that was made possible by the cross.
I: One question remains. All those passages about some being predestined for salvation because of God’s immense love, do they just mean that God, in His love, didn’t give up on humans and had a plan for their salvation even before the creation, opened that destiny for them? Or it means that He chose only some people for eternity, and those who are not chosen somehow are just not chosen. If Catharine of Sienna felt we have at least some choice, how does it work with the idea of predestination for probation? And if you agree that we have a choice, why do we not agree with those who think we can choose?
MH: Because we do not want to go to Pelagianism, which demands good deeds from sinful people. We do not have any goodness that can save us.
AL: Neither do we demand anything from sinful people. We run and we will, but it’s God’s love that makes it possible. It is a mystery of God’s love and human response to it.
I: I think we do not choose good deeds, but we can choose Him and His love, His intention for us and the whole world, His assistance and guidance. I like to think that He wants to be freely chosen. Am I a heretic? I need to finish by saying we do agree about many things. Maybe we should pay less attention to the things that divide us. The unity is undoubtedly a big part of His plan. Do we have a choice to choose that and keep talking? I do not believe we are predestined to argue and live in the division.
MH: We surely can keep talking to each other, but we need to revisit the idea that the West sees the atonement in terms of payment for sins only; it is not true.
AL: There are other things that divide us, and that is unfortunate. I often say that the Easts simply does not feel heard by the West. We need to work on that, too.
I: Good. Let’s not give up. Let’s choose Him and see what He will do to our sinful division.