# Multiple Purpose View of Atonement?



## Romans922 (Oct 14, 2006)

I found this on facebook, a group who were saying they were 4-pt Calvinists under the name of TUIP. What really is this view and what are its implications? 

Here is what I found on facebook:

The multiple purpose view of the atonement is an attempt to incorporate the whole scope of the the meaning of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as presented in the Bible. According to this position, there are weak points on both traditional side of this view (Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement). Both of these views run into "trouble" texts in the New Testament. We, the four pointers, believe that there is an alternative to both traditional views that more adequately follows the teachings of scripture. Proponents of this view call it the Multiple Purpose Atonement view. As the name implies, the atonements is not simply understood in the Bible as accomplishing one things.

As presented by Bruce A. Ware, of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the multiple purposes of the atonement are as follows:

1.) Limited Scope Purpose
2.) Limitless Scope Purpose
3.) Bona Fide Offer Purpose
4.) Just Condemnation Purpose
5.) Cosmic Triumph Purpose


----------



## Puddleglum (Oct 14, 2006)

I've got no clue what they're talking about . . . but almost all Facebook groups aren't created with any sort of serious / logical / intelligent thought behind them. (Which is my excuse for dismissing practically everything I see on there!)


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 14, 2006)

Well, Bruce Ware isn't the greatest theologian when it comes to Doctrines of Grace and Predestination so I was wondering what this view might be.

And these guys that started the group, are students of his at SBTS.

[Edited on 10-14-2006 by Romans922]


----------



## turmeric (Oct 14, 2006)

They're Christmas Calvinists - No L!

I think this view is technically called Amyraldism. John Owen wrote a wonderful, but lengthy, critique called _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 14, 2006)

Anybody?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 15, 2006)

Confused Armninians?


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Oct 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> They're Christmas Calvinists - No L!




I never heard that one before.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 16, 2006)

They are confused! 

Meg has it right. Let them take on Owen in Death of Death. Its probably the most complete and best accounting of limited atonement there is.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

> Christmas Calvinists?
> …
> Confused Arminians?



Well I neither subscribe to the commonly-held theory of limited atonement nor that of universal atonement, holding instead to something that I would call a dualistic view, so I suppose that, on face value, the remarks here could be taken to be directed at such as me. 

I have to say such supposedly light-hearted humour just doesn’t seem appropriate to me in light of the following scriptures:


> Philippians 2:1-4
> 1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, *but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself*. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:24-26
> And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, *correcting his opponents with gentleness*. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.



As a brother in Christ who has come to his understanding through painstaking study and prayer I find it insulting to be described as being confused. I will readily admit that I am not the brightest person around here by a long way but that in no way means that I am confused. Am I really to made fun of because I earnestly seek to understand scripture and avoid reading my own ‘system’ into them? What of Christ who will not break a bruised reed?

May the Lord be merciful to us all.

Martin


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 22, 2006)

Hello Martin,
Since you said you hold somewhat to this view, could you describe your view and maybe shed light on this view that I have provided. Why do you hold that view, etc.?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2006)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Well I neither subscribe to the commonly-held theory of limited atonement nor that of universal atonement, holding instead to something that I would call a dualistic view, so I suppose that, on face value, the remarks here could be taken to be directed at such as me.
> 
> I have to say such supposedly light-hearted humour just doesn’t seem appropriate to me in light of the following scriptures:
> 
> ...



Martin, 
Not that I do not hear you loud and clear; I do. Thank you for the rebuke. However, what condition are those in that reject the biblical view? Some are assuredly 'confused'. Some are rebelling against God. Many are just not educated enough to take in the information. I agree that we should not laugh at such a condition; it could be life threatening.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

wsw201 said:


> They are confused!
> 
> Meg has it right. Let them take on Owen in Death of Death. Its probably the most complete and best accounting of limited atonement there is.


So, perhaps you can help me to understand where I am getting confused and quote or summarise for what you think is so good about Owen's argument?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2006)

Martin,
Andrew asked you to summarize your position; it would benefit us all. It is much easier to do that than get out Owens work. By the way, if you have not read Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I highly reccomend it. It can be found here online as well:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Martin,
> Not that I do not hear you loud and clear; I do. Thank you for the rebuke. However, what condition are those in that reject the biblical view? Some are assuredly 'confused'. Some are rebelling against God. Many are just not educated enough to take in the information. I agree that we should not laugh at such a condition; it could be life threatening.


Hello Scott, I assume your question is rhetorical as I cannot really speak for the condition of others, nor am I clear what 'biblical view' you refer to. Furthermore I don't expect that there would be many who would actually call themself a christian and actually say that they reject the biblical view of anything! Notwithstanding that, you are, of course, correct: some are assuredly confused about many things (indeed aren't we all about something!) but then I think you appreciate that it is the humour that I am commenting upon and not the describing of one's position as 'confused'. Having said that, even were the posters to be genuinely describing the position as confused it hardly can be said to answer the original question can it?

Grace and peace in Christ,
Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2006)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Hello Scott, I assume your question is rhetorical as I cannot really speak for the condition of others, nor am I clear what 'biblical view' you refer to.



For example: Paedobaptism. I believe that the credobaptist is just _confused_.  



> Furthermore I don't expect that there would be many who would actually call themself a christian and actually say that they reject the biblical view of anything!



There are many things that may be biblical and people reject them; a good example is the doctrine of election. Highly biblical and rejected by the Arminian ilk.



> Notwithstanding that, you are, of course, correct: some are assuredly confused about many things (indeed aren't we all about something!) but then I think you appreciate that it is the humour that I am commenting upon and not the describing of one's position as 'confused'.



Yup.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 22, 2006)

Skeuos Eleos said:


> Hello Scott, I assume your question is rhetorical as I cannot really speak for the condition of others, nor am I clear what 'biblical view' you refer to. Furthermore I don't expect that there would be many who would actually call themself a christian and actually say that they reject the biblical view of anything! Notwithstanding that, you are, of course, correct: some are assuredly confused about many things (indeed aren't we all about something!) but then I think you appreciate that it is the humour that I am commenting upon and not the describing of one's position as 'confused'. Having said that, even were the posters to be genuinely describing the position as confused it hardly can be said to answer the original question can it?
> 
> Grace and peace in Christ,
> Martin



And Martin still has not answerd . . . . Will he?


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Martin,
> Andrew asked you to summarize your position; it would benefit us all. It is much easier to do that than get out Owens work. By the way, if you have not read Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I highly reccomend it. It can be found here online as well:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html


Andrew, Scott,

I would describe my soteriological views as being similar to those of Baxter, Ussher, Davenant, Ryle, Dabney, etc (and Calvin, but then we know that that is hotly disupted!)

No, I admit I haven't read Death of Death. I have read brief portions but found it hard going. And, bearing in mind that I have little time and many other things already waiting to be read in what little time I could devote to such reading coupled with the fact that I have read some criticisms of what I am led to believe are his key arguments and I will be honest and say that my appetite for doing so is low.

I will also be honest and say I am not sure I have the time or mental capacity to engage in such a debate - and I have seen others far more capable than myself meet with little success (and, I hasten to add, not, in my opinion, because of the unsoundness of the argument but because of the apparent inability of those who hold to strict limited atonement to recognise the presuppositions that they read into the text). My own concern is more for standards in such discussions. It is sadly all too commonplace for those holding similar views to my own to be mocked. Yet this is neither appropriate christian behaviour nor is it, as far as I know, anywhere near as common a feature of relevant historical discussions as it is of those of our day. I know, for example, that Owen despised Baxter's views on the atonement yet I have never heard nor seen anywhere where Owen made fun of Baxter in their numerous disagreements.

When I replied to Andrew what I suppose I had in mind is that he might quote Owen's famous triple-choice dilemma. I have heard many say that this was the argument that led them to 'embrace' 'limited atonement' and I believe some criticisms can be made of this argument. It is sad that many would seem to embrace 'limited atonement' on the basis of logic rather than the force of scripture - especially when the logic can be shown to be dubious. I could spend some time on this if that is considered to be worthwhile or, alternatively, discussing relevant scriptures such as John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Tim 4:10; Heb 2:9, etc

Soli Deo Gloria!
Martin


----------



## Peter (Oct 22, 2006)

Don't most Reformed scholars hold to a multiple purpose view of the atonement in a sense? The atonement shows us God's hatred of sin, his love of the world, (possibly) it accrues for the non-elect material and spiritual blessings in this life, and most importantly it secures justification, adoption and glorification for the elect.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2006)

Romans922 said:


> 1.) Limited Scope Purpose
> 2.) Limitless Scope Purpose
> 3.) Bona Fide Offer Purpose
> 4.) Just Condemnation Purpose
> 5.) Cosmic Triumph Purpose



Why stop there? There is also the governmental purpose, the participationist purpose, and the example purpose. However, as William Cunningham pointed out, these are all subservient to the main purpose for which Christ offered Himself, which was to satisfy divine justice. They only derive their virtue from this supreme purpose. As such, they cannot be construed as effecting anything more, but are only subsidiary benefits of, a definite and limited atonement.


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

Michael Butterfield said:


> And Martin still has not answerd . . . . Will he?


I'm sorry, I'm not sure what it is you are referring to here. As can be seen from the post of mine which you quoted I didn't think there was anything to be answered. 

And, I wonder, why did you feel it appropriate to comment upon a perceived delay in my answering and then question whether I would ever do so? Well I suppose your motives are between yourself and the Lord but Brother I can tell you that it seemed _to me _as though you were mocking me. I do hope I am mistaken.

I had better make clear that I may take several days to reply to posts: I have family, church and work responsibilities that are all higher priority. And, by the way, note that I am at least five hours ahead of the US so don't expect me to be around much longer tonight and please don't interpret a delay in my responding as an unwillingness to do so. 

I pray that all our discussions may be kept both Christ-exalting and edifying to His people. 

Martin


----------



## Skeuos Eleos (Oct 22, 2006)

Romans922 said:


> Hello Martin,
> Since you said you hold somewhat to this view, could you describe your view and maybe shed light on this view that I have provided. Why do you hold that view, etc.?


Andrew, 

Andrew, I must apologise. I was not careful enough to distinguish between two aspects of your original post. I only say that my views are similar to the material you originally quoted as regards the comment that "there are weak points on both traditional side of this view (Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement). Both of these views run into "trouble" texts in the New Testament." I am in agreement with that but I should point out that I do not describe myself as a "four-pointer" and I know nothing about these ideas:
"1.) Limited Scope Purpose
2.) Limitless Scope Purpose
3.) Bona Fide Offer Purpose
4.) Just Condemnation Purpose
5.) Cosmic Triumph Purpose"

If you were interested in knowing the meaning of these other 'purposes' then I'm afraid I can't help - I would only be guessing what the author meant. I can however explain a little about why I hold to neither universal atonement nor strict limited atonement, if that is what you want to know about?

Well that really is my last post of the day!

Yours in Christ,
Martin


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 24, 2006)

*advice*



Skeuos Eleos said:


> I'm sorry, I'm not sure what it is you are referring to here. As can be seen from the post of mine which you quoted I didn't think there was anything to be answered.
> 
> And, I wonder, why did you feel it appropriate to comment upon a perceived delay in my answering and then question whether I would ever do so? Well I suppose your motives are between yourself and the Lord but Brother I can tell you that it seemed _to me _as though you were mocking me. I do hope I am mistaken.
> 
> ...



Advice: Web boards and general internet communciation, which includes e-mail has little or no voice. One is always well served to understand this when using this medium of "communication."


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 24, 2006)

Gasp* Michael, that must be an attack on the Puritanboard.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Oct 24, 2006)

Romans922 said:


> Gasp* Michael, that must be an attack on the Puritanboard.



Not at all. Just some sage advice from my years of experience.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 24, 2006)

hehe


----------



## Puddleglum (Nov 13, 2006)

For what it's worth . . . the Facebook group now has a link to this post to explain more fully what they believe!


----------



## JoshCasey (Nov 15, 2006)

Just as a general question, what is the point of looking at the atonement in terms of the purpose/intent? Why not look at what ACTUALLY happened? Someone can say "Christ-intended-to-save-the-whole-world" all he wants, but it doesn't change the what Christ's death actually did - purchase atonement for His elect. 

Not trying to contradict anyone, or say this discussion is worthless, I'm just asking a question.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Josh Casey_
> Just as a general question, what is the point of looking at the atonement in terms of the purpose/intent? Why not look at what ACTUALLY happened? Someone can say "Christ-intended-to-save-the-whole-world" all he wants, but it doesn't change the what Christ's death actually did - purchase atonement for His elect.
> 
> Not trying to contradict anyone, or say this discussion is worthless, I'm just asking a question.


That's a good question, and actually it hits close to the heart of _why_ the discussion. Strict Calvinism teaches there is no division between what happens and God's intention--they are one and the same, effect and cause. The Calvinist wants to know: *where in the Bible do we find any other intent for Jesus death than to "save his people from their sins*"? Clearly, the objective accomplishments of his atonement with respect to the elect are full and complete and efficatious. So... with the non-elect, are the objectives of "their atonement" more limited, incomplete, or ineffectual? Why does anyone even speak of an atonement "for them" from an objective standpoint?

No one knows (with infallibility) which persons are in which category--elect/nonelect. So, telling everyone of the "availability" of Jesus' death, of its intrinsic power and efficacy to save, of its superabundant merit, all that is perfectly consistent with the teaching of particular atonement.

Inserting a _different_ purpose, than saving the elect, into the equation divides the atonement into have's and have-not's. It is two different things entirely to say that 1) in a sense Jesus death had such incalculable value that every human being ever might have been saved by it _if God had intended that,_ and 2) that Jesus died with the _intent_ to pay for even the sins where his _intention_ would not see the fulfillment, namely divine satisfaction in regard to "person X" and the necessary consequence, his redemption.

Does it make sense to say "I paid your debt, but God did not elect you so you don't get the benefit"? What would that man "pay" in hell? What wages has he earned that Jesus wasn't already given? There's no more sense to that statement than there is to say "I paid your debt, but if you don't _choose_ to accept it, you don't get the benefit." #1, isn't non-choice one of the sins atoned for? and #2, that's synergism.

A typical Calvinist doesn't even struggle with divine intention, because he's already operating within a simple structure of intent-fulfilment. God intends to save his people, then he fulfils his intent by Jesus' death. When someone asks the question: "Well what about the rest of the people Jesus died for?" the Calvinist says "Who are they?!"

The Father gave his Son a people. The Son came to earth for that people, to do everything for that people, and his atoning cross-work and his priestly intercession (which is for his people, and NO OTHERS, Jn. 17:9) cover the exact same ground.


----------



## JoshCasey (Nov 15, 2006)

Aha! Thank you so much, that was precisely what I was looking for. 

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson once said something to the effect that the easiest way to tell what God's intention was was to look at what actually happened.

As you said, I'm starting from the standpoint of intent-fulfilment. It's impossible for me to separate the two, so I almost don't even try to understand the intent beyond the effect.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 16, 2006)

I found something from the archives: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20809


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 19, 2006)

turmeric said:


> I think this view is technically called Amyraldism.



Correct!


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 28, 2006)

FOUND IT!
Here is Bruce Ware's argument in his own words by him!



> *Extent of the Atonement:
> Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts,
> and Key Theological Arguments
> Bruce A. Ware
> ...


----------

