I guess that point demands some refinement, but this is basically how I see it now:

Those who were hoping to be justified by the demands of the Old (that is, Mosaic) Covenant were never able to, because they lacked the “heart of flesh” necessary to delight in God’s laws. But those who were heirs of the Abrahamic promise through faith were justified by faith (as was Abraham himself), and were given a new heart of flesh (as circumcision signified), which enabled them to begin fulfilling the law, to an extent, from a true heart of faith. I guess a good part of my shift to the paedo-baptist point of view involved seeing a distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law, which ran concurrently with it for many years, but never abrogated it.

Would you still stay, from a reformed paedobaptist point of view, that what was lacking to the Old Covenant in contrast with the New Covenant was “a “heart of flesh” for all those under its demands” ?

It’s anyway a great post, as usual…

Pierre-Sovann

…if Christ actually atoned for the sins of unbelievers, either they will [1] not be punished for those [ie, their own] sins; or [2] God will punish them unjustly, because they [ie, their sins] have already been atoned for; or [3] God will reject Christ’s sacrifice as insufficient for them, and hence punish them justly. The latter two are blasphemous. The first is clearly contradicted by scriptures which picture the unsaved as suffering for their sins in hell.”>

Bob Hayton: I see this as the crux of the issue. Since Scripture presents the nature of the atonement as efficacious [ie, unlimited in power] and since Scripture affirms a limit to the procured salvation, in that not all are saved–many will be justly punished, we are forced to conclude that the atonement is limited in its extent.

Thanks for the discussion. It helps to lay things out logically and Scripturally, and then see that the conclusion is very clear. Soli Deo Gloria.

Thanks for the response.

The following excerpt from “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism” by the staff of Bethlehem reframes a couple of Owen’s syllogisms:

“We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God’s punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

This is one of the arguments with which he should be dealing if he would positively establish a case for universal atonement. However, I do not think that was his intention; I think he only wished to rule out one faulty avenue for arguing for or against the reformed understanding of the atonement.

Consider some of the passages like Psalm 2, and many of Christ’s monologues in John, in which it becomes patently clear that Christ was sent to accomplish a very definite task of actually redeeming those whom the Father had given to him. Why, for instance, would Christ have explicitly mentioned that he was not praying for God’s acceptance of those who were not his, but only of those who were his, unless he intended to provide salvation for the one group and not for the other. No, it was not his intent to provide, let alone apply, salvation for those who were not his, as we may with some reason infer from this explicit exclusion of them from his high priestly prayer in John 17.

Read Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and see if anyone arguing for a universal atonement has addressed any of his arguments. If not, there may be a reason for that conspicuous dearth.

Great article. I was familiar with the argument central to your post. However, I had not seen the covenantal defense of limited atonement presented in such a way.

Question, though. What do you make of href=”http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20050204.pdf” title=”The Logic of Limited Atonement”> Kevin Bauder’s article on limited atonement? Is there legitimacy to his provision/application argument?

Granted, it is somewhat difficult to come up with a clear negation text to argue for limited atonement. I am thinking, Rom. 8:32-34. Is there a clear text which would emphatically state Christ’s death did this much and no more? If a text saying Christ actually meant to propitiate thru his death is put forth, the counter would be yes, but could he not also have died to make provision for all? How explicit of a negation does reason demand? Perhaps another series of texts would be the implied negations stemming from the intentionally chosen metaphorical recipients of Christ’s death (His sheep [Jn. 10], bride [Eph. 5], and church [Acts 20:28]–clearly the implication from the metaphor is that there is no death for the goats, non-bride, and non-church).