# Lutheran argument for universal atonement



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 4, 2015)

*Lutheran argument against limited atonement*

How would we respond to this? From Responding to Calvinist Arguments Against Universal Atonement:



> Limited atonement is the logical conclusion to the other four points of Calvinism. One particular rational argument has been highly influential since John Owen’s “The Death of Death” was published in the 17th century. The argument proceeds as follows:
> 
> Christ’s death was a propitiation of God’s wrath toward sin. The punishment of sin was laid upon the shoulders of God’s Son so that those whom he represented need no longer bear the punishment themselves. 'ἱλαστερισν can only be defined by the actual turning of way of wrath rather than potential turning away of wrath upon the condition of faith. If Christ died for the unbeliever, then God’s wrath has been propitiated toward the unbeliever. Therefore, the unbeliever could not go to hell. For the unbeliever to end up in hell is an affront to God’s justice because they would be bearing a punishment which was already paid through the cross. Thus, in order for God to be just, if the unbeliever goes to hell, his punishment could not have been paid — Christ could not have possibly died for them.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithW (Jan 5, 2015)

Some previous PuritanBoard threads on how Luther viewed the Atonement.

Limited vs. Universal Atonement - this thread asks about the same Jordan Cooper article.

What was Martin Luther's view of the Atonement?


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Jan 5, 2015)

Some good discussion there, but none of it really addresses what I'm interested in, i.e. the argument that Calvinists believe one is under wrath even after sin is atoned for (until conversion).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 5, 2015)

I don't think this is a Lutheran argument for universal atonement as much as it is an argument against the Reformed view of limited atonement.

This provides a helpful clarification on how we may understand the relationship between God's eternal knowledge and human history. If the objector's argument is true then it makes all human decision irrelevant because the decree is what it is and human decision is inconsequential.



> Reformed theologians in seventeenth-century Britain typically posited a threefold union with Christ in terms of God’s immanent, transient, and applicatory works. Some even spoke of justification in relation to these three stages, which led to the doctrine of eternal justification.6 “Immanent union” refers to being elected in union with Christ from all eternity, before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4); “transient union” refers to believers’ union with Christ in time past, in His mediatorial death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–11); and “applicatory union” refers to the believer’s experience of union with Christ in the present time (Eph. 2:5–6). Peter Bulkeley (1583–1659) follows this threefold pattern when he refers to the doctrine of justification, first, “as purposed and determined in the mind and will of God.… Second, as impetrated and obtained for us by the obedience of Christ.… Third, as actually applied unto us.”7 The third stage of union with Christ is often referred to as our “mystical” union with Christ.
> Halyburton notes these distinctions and stresses that each part of this threefold union with Christ is related to the others in a fundamental way. Those who were elected in Christ in eternity past are those for whom Christ died and rose again in time past, and they are the ones to whom the Holy Spirit applies all the benefits of Christ’s mediatorial work. There is a unity in God’s will. All three persons of the Godhead concurred in the work of salvation in the eternal covenant of redemption. That is to say, the salvation of the elect is certain because it is rooted in the eternal, unchangeable decree of God. Moreover, there was a “general justification” effected by Christ’s oblation, but this is not “justification properly and strictly called.”8 Even for those who spoke of justification as eternal (e.g., Thomas Goodwin [1600–1680]), a sinner nevertheless abides under the wrath of God until he or she believes.9
> 6 See chapter 8, “Thomas Goodwin and Johannes Maccovius on Justification from Eternity.”
> 7 Peter Bulkeley, The Gospel-Covenant (London: though[mas] Parker, 1674), 358.
> ...


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 6, 2015)

Thank you Rich. To add if I can, I have found for some years now how abstract discussions of the atonement (and the other four points) have become. Nothing could be more concrete and personal/corporate than TULIP. 

1. I am a totally depraved individual to whom God owes nothing but I owe God everything
2. God elects to save a people for himself based on no condition in us only his gracious choice
3. He really did atone for his people's sins not in theory or anything else but our sins have actually been paid for
4. We have been irresistibly drawn and called to be our Lord's people
5. My/our God will persevere to keep us as His people, no matter what I/we will make it

So much of Calvinism gets too much talked about in an abstract fashion but what I attempted to lay out was covenant theology in its personal/corporate fashion and I hope it answers all these questions. So in answer to the question if they understood covenant theology they wouldn't have a problem with limited atonement.


----------

