Comments on: What Is Mark Driscoll's View of Atonement?

By: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" Audiobook Review

Driscoll's "Real Marriage" Audiobook Review — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:53:24 +0000

[…] But here are some discussions, one with sermon links: Mark Driscoll's Unlimited Limited atonement What Is Mark Driscoll's View of Atonement? | The A-Team Blog Book Review – Death by Love | Challies Dot Com Mark Edwards RE (inactive) First Presbyterian […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:41:21 +0000

“This is where Driscoll (and Piper and Carson) would say they would rather be biblical than have to conform to what other Reformed theologians have said. That's great and all, but when Scripture contradicts someone's own systematic interpretation of Scripture, Scripture wins.”
I agree that they would say that, and I'm in agreement with that as well. The post was in response to the notion that Driscoll is fully in the Reformed tradition. The point here is that the atonement is a significant point in which he's not in line with Reformed tradition. Whether or not that's good or bad is a wholly different question I tried, at least originally, not to address.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:31:16 +0000

This is where Driscoll (and Piper and Carson) would say they would rather be biblical than have to conform to what other Reformed theologians have said. That's great and all, but when Scripture contradicts someone's own systematic interpretation of Scripture, Scripture wins. I personally don't think any of these guys (including Bruce Ware) fall outside of the Reformed view on the Atonement. If there is any difference, it's semantics.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:56:29 +0000

Hello all…I’m a first time Ateam blogger. I really enjoy this conversation and find it…and others like it…to be profitable. My intent is not to tear down or to be divisive. I love what God is doing in Seattle through Mars Hill and the work of Mark Driscoll and the elders of that Church. I’ve been visiting Mars Hill every time I’m in Seattle since 2002. I love the vibe of that place…especially when they were all crammed in that little neighborhood church with 1 legal parking space back in the day.
Anyway…I agree with Roger’s statement that Mark’s view of unlimited, limited atonement is not the historic Reformed understanding of the scope and effect of Christ’s atonement. I’ve read many articulate comments on this subject here on the blog, but I believe that we’re dealing with a misunderstanding of the word atonement.
The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines atonement as “The death of Jesus on the cross, which effects salvation as the reestablishment of the relationship between God and sinners.”
Wayne Grudem defines atonement as “The work Christ did in His life and death to earn our salvation.”
Louis Berkhof wrote in great depth about the person and work of Jesus in making atonement for His people according to His office as “Our Great High Priest” which also includes Christ’s continual intercession on our behalf and not that of the world (John 17:9). I will not quote from Berkhof as he did not write in sound byte fashion.
If we understand the Reformed view of the atonement as being limited in scope…to the elect only…and if we understand that in the atonement, Christ secured propitiation, expiation and redemption all of which produce reconciliation with God, then it would seem to me that any other benefits from Christ’s life, death, resurrection and intercession that do not manifest as salvation, are something other than atoning in nature. In my simple mind, atonement = salvation.
Now I believe that we can agree that all men benefit in some way because of Christ’s particular redemption of the elect. Driscoll did a great job of speaking of the grace that has flown out to all people through God’s Church as a result of the salvation of God’s elect. It would seem to me though that any benefits that do not produce salvation are not consistent with the doctrine of the atonement, but are reflective of God’s common grace that is poured out through the Church that was purchased by Christ’s blood. So if the unlimited nature of Driscoll’s unlimited/limited atonement does not include the secure salvation of an unlimited number of people…it would seem to me that the salvific nature of the atonement is being misrepresented.
Perhaps the Mars Hill elders have adopted this view in order to make what they believe to be a bona fide gospel offer. If this is the case, my question is, do we find a similar theology leading to a similar gospel call in the New Testament? I don't find an apostle in the NT saying “Jesus made atonement for you, so believe.” Does this make their calls to believe and repent any less bona fide? Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15 “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” To the Philippian jailer Paul said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
In the Mars Hill discourse in Acts 17 Paul never says, or hints, that Jesus died for all…he simply made the case that Jesus is the Christ and then closed with “but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)
Peter's message on Pentecost never mentions that Jesus died for all people. He simply testifies that God put Jesus forward to be crucified and that God raised Him up. “Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about 3,000 souls.” (Acts 2:36-47)
So based on Scripture, it seems to me that a genuine gospel offer must include a teaching that Jesus is God and that the only way to peace with God is through faith in the finished work of Jesus and that true faith must lead us to repentance.
If Scripture is our rule… it doesn’t seem to me that we need to ever tell someone that “Jesus died to make atonement for you”, for indeed we cannot make that claim and remain faithful to the plain teaching and examples of the apostles. We simply must share that “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”
I also believe that in making his case for “modified Calvinism”, in His message “Unlimited, Limited Atonement”, Mark Driscoll made the claim that his view of the atonement was the same as that of his hero, C.H. Spurgeon. I know that Spurgeon held to Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. Spurgeon wrote, “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe that we can preach the gospel…unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the Cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called.” (Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. I, Ch.XVI, p.172.)
Concerning Calvinism and the scope of the atonement, Spurgeon also wrote, “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question-Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say “No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if”-and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
I hope that we can continue this conversation. I see this forum as a great place for me to share and to learn, with and from, others who wrestle with the details and implications of our Christian faith.
Blessings.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:54:56 +0000

Thanks for a great post. As a reformed pastor who resonates with much of Driscoll's missiology this is great information. The discussion here, along with the helpful info links for support is the reason why I blog, and why I'll send folks this way. Keep up the good work.
I'll now have something new to listen out for as I head to Piper's place next month for the Above All Earthly Powers conference where Driscoll will be speaking.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:18:08 +0000

In their capstone lectures they attempt to de-limit the atonement by applying it to the same extent that Colossians does “reconciled all things through the blood of his cross.” Very few evangelical or Reformed formulations deal with this text.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:06:33 +0000

This:
“In this post I will simply be providing evidence that his view is not the Reformed view, not arguing whether or not his view is correct.”
Is not the same as this:
“However, where Driscoll errors is in calling this atonement.”
Or this:
“Such a view, apart from not making any sense, is not the Reformed view.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:40:42 +0000

Amen Good Points Reid and I think Gary could take me -didn't he play college ball?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:36:08 +0000

The interesting thing is that John Piper is the source of the quote “We preach everything an Arminian would, we just go further.” I am almost certain that this was in one of the messages given at the 2004 Reformission Conference where Piper was the keynote. I think perhaps Driscoll grabbed on to that phrase. All that is meant there is the Calvinist, even of the John Piper variety, can say “Come to Jesus, anyone who is thirsty, come and drink. Come and buy without price, believe upon the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved.” Any Calvinist who believes in a bone fide offer for all (ala Piper, Hoekema) can preach like this – which Piper says “was preaching everything the Arminian would” – but we go further. We tell everyone that they cannot save themselves, we tell the new convert that even their belief and faith was the the result of the regenerating work of the Spirit God. We tell them that they were chosen by God before the foundation of the world, not because of their self-worth, merit or good deeds, but because of God's own mercy and good pleasure. We tell them that all of their lives are ordered by infinite mercy and justice and a loving Father. We also tell them not to become hypers who will not go and preach the gospel to all ethne, for fear of having the name Jesus touch the ears of non-elect. We do believe much of what Arminians believe – we jut go much, much further. God can and does “change people's minds” and “make them” believe. This is why we pray for people to come to faith. We believe in man's total depravity, bondage of the will, and total inability to do on his own what he must do – believe upon Jesus for his salvation. We believe that the cross purchased for God his very own elect sheep. That election and the atoning death by itself does not save, but faith in Christ's atoning work, by the elect, in space and time, brings the elect to God.
I personally believe that the multiple intentions view as articulated by Dr. Ware is very sound. I think it should be taught as the multiple intentions God had for the cross, with only one of them being actual atonement. And in Ware's view this intention is to pay for the sins of the elect. I have called it 4.2 point Calvinism, with .8 (the other four intentions) being about all the God has wrought through the Cross of Christ in addition to definite atonement.
Scott, I know Shavey, he is a friend of mine. Don't hate on his presentation style He is Mars Hill's theology geek, not its primary orator. But you are right, the unlimited/limited MP3s are a little monotone, but far from boring. Afterall how can anyone be bored hearing a guy talk about the response to the Remonstrants. Church history and sound doctrine are just too sweet to be boring.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:38:31 +0000

Fair enough brother. I think the Arminian statement is stumbling you. I think he is saying that Arminians limit the atonement more than the 4/5 does. I think it's a Driscollism. I am wondering if you heard Shavey? Being the associate of Driscoll I think he does a good(albeit boring) job trying to explain what the Elders(including Driscoll) believe.They shouldnt say the Arminian thing. I agree maybe thats why Dr.Ware is going up there for?
I send my TMS buddies to this blog to see an example of Taking a stand for the truth but doing it in love. I still remember STR and Greg K (and you all I presume) sitting down with the leaders of Emergent. I was blessed by the message which is we may disagree but without objectifying our opponenents.
Blessings Bro
Scott