Mark Driscoll’s “Unlimited Limited Atonement”
Mark Driscoll at the Dwell Conference
At first glance, unlimited and limited atonement appear to be in opposition. But that dilemma is resolved by nothing two things. First, the two categories are not mutually exclusive; since Jesus died for the sins of everyone, that means he also died for the sins of the elect. Second, Jesus’ death for all people does not accomplish the same thing as his death for the elect. This point is complicated, but it is, in fact, taught in Scripture… 1 Timothy 4:10… “We have out hope set on the living God, who is the Savior for all people, especially of those who believe.”
By dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect, those in Christ, by grace, and he applies his wrath to the non-elect, those who reject Christ. Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone and, subjectively, efficient only to save those who repent of their sin and trust in him. This position is called unlimited limited atonement, or modified Calvinism (Death by Love: Letters from the Cross, pg. 171-172)
Driscoll went on to posit that “this is the position that I would argue John Calvin himself held…” (pg. 172) Driscoll quotes Calvin 6 times from various commentaries. Each time in support of this “modified Calvinism” stance.
It is true that Christ’s death could have saved all men, if God, the Father elected every individual. The reality is that it did not. Obviously Driscoll agrees with this by not advocating universal salvation. I wonder, however, if he is trying to explain the Reformed idea of Common Grace. Louis Berkhof said it this way.
The distinction between Common and Saving Grace only applies to the gracious operations of God and to the effects of these operations in nature and in the life of man. When we speak of common grace we have in mind either (a) those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart exercises such a moral influence on man that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life and civil righteousness is promoted; or (b) these general blessings which God imparts to all men indiscriminately in whatever measure it seems good to him…. common grace does not enable the sinner to perform any spiritual good, nor to turn to God in faith and repentance…. By his atoning work Christ merited the blessings of special grace. Did he also by his sacrificial death merit the more common blessings of divine grace which are bestowed on all men, and therefore also on the impenitent and reprobate? … These general blessings indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ were, of course, not only foreseen by God, but also designed by Him as blessings for all mankind. (The Manual of Christian Doctrine, pg. 224-226)
If this is a game of semantics, then I could not care less. However, if so there is a danger when one redefines confessional categories. (This is something that one sees upon examination of the Federal Vision.) I appreciate Driscoll for many things, but this is one that I want to question him on.
In college I had three good friends who were Protestant Reformed. One of whom, Stefan Griess, owns a blog that I link to. We had many discussions centered on the question of the legitimacy of common grace. I am pro-common grace; they were conta-common grace. Let it be known that I do not like calling grace common. The only time scripture uses grace is in the context of salvation, which is not common by any means. Yet in the truest definition of grace, unmerited favor, God does show kindness to all mankind. Every individual should be, and deserves to be, tossed into the lake of fire, eternally separated from the love of God and the source of fellowship. This is the place where Stefan and myself agreed upon.
But let it be said that common grace does not equal the atonement. The atonement, by its very definition, is the act that Christ did to reconcile sinners to God. See here for more.
Like your picture with CJ Mahaney at T4G!
Thanks for your stand, too, against what Driscoll is saying here. His online book on Pornography is extremely timely and helpful. He’s got a way of saying things that packs a solid punch for us contemporary guys, eh? Thankful for that.
I think it is imperative to know what Calvin said about Discroll’s proof-text 1 Timothy 4:10: