Here are two short articles (now put together here in one place) by that is zero barrier to fellowship or love. I am going to try to explain why I think this is an important doctrine, but it isn’t an all-important doctrine. It has far-reaching implications, but not so as to define Christianity to the exclusion of all who don’t agree. At our church, particular redemption is not spelled out in the statement of faith, and it is not required either that members or leaders precisely think as I do about it — nor would I ever want that to change.
Talking about the doctrine
This isn’t really my main post on the subject, but the main post will need this one to come first. That doesn’t mean this one doesn’t count!
“Limited? Ew.” To those unfamiliar with the concept, “particular redemption” is more commonly known as Limited atonement, being the “L” of the acronym “TULIP.” I think almost no adherent really likes the term much, because everyone’s first and most natural reaction would be indignantly to burst out with “What?! — limit Christ’s atonement? I don’t think so!” However, any change would alter the neat little acronym (— TUPIP? TUDIP?).
However, on cooler reflection one soon realizes that every Christian necessarily limits Christ’s atonement in some manner. Only universalists do not, and it’s debatable whether they should be regarded as Christian.
Think about it. Every Christian believes that some people — at least Judas (Jn. 17:12), and the Beast and the False Prophet (Rev. 19:20), will suffer the wrath of God for their sins, unforgiven and “unatoned,” for all eternity. So then, every Christian would “limit” the atonement of Christ by saying that it will not save those who go to Hell. Their sins are still on them; Christ has not removed them. Otherwise we’re left with the universe-obliterating absurdity of sinless people forever suffering God’s wrath for no reason whatever. Continue reading
At a recent conference the three of us on the panel (all pastors) were asked the question, “As a layperson, should I start a grassroots movement to change my church?” All three of us basically said, “No.” Following the conference I got a long and heated email from someone who was very upset with my answer. He thought I was guilty of clericalism and gave no place for the laity to know anything, do anything, or ever question the pastor. That was certainly not what I said, nor, so far as I can tell, what most people thought we were communicating. But his concerns got my blogging juices flowing. The initial question about forming a grassroots movement to change a local church is one I’ve gotten in one form or another several times in the past five years. So perhaps it would be helpful to spell out my answer in a little more detail.