In the 15th chapter of his Systematic Theology, Michael Horton speaks about the topic of Christ’s threefold office of prophet, priest and king, all speaking on his life, death and resurrection. At the very end of the chapter Horton brings up the question of the extent of the atonement. This is an important question that Evangelical Christians differ on and so it is necessary to discuss. Horton begins by summarizing the 3 main positions on the topic. The first is universal atonement that is that the sins of every single person have been atoned for bar none. So everyone is redeemed through Christ’s work, and the early church Father Origen went as far as to expect Satan himself restored at some point. The second is what Horton refers to as, …show more content…
In this understanding Christ’s death was sufficient to save everyone and bear every sin, but in actuality he only bore the sin and punishment for the elect. He goes on to defend this third view with two main arguments. First is that it most adequately expresses the relationship of the Trinity in the process of redemption. The Father was the architect, planning the whole thing in eternity past, the Son was sent to bear the actual burden, to do the actual work on the cross, and finally the Spirit applies the work to the elect and brings it all to completion. The second argument is that this view most adequately shows the “efficacy and objectivity” of the atonement. Those Christ died for cannot be …show more content…
The language of “limited” is misleading, putting a negative twist on the doctrine. If Christ’s atonement was limited then it does that mean that Christ was not able to take on all of the sins of the world? Was Christ not strong enough? Of course not, and yet this language seems to point in that direction. A helpful thing that Horton did was bring up how both the Arminian and Reformed doctrines place some limitation on the atonement as they are not universalist. The difference comes down to what the purpose of the atonement was in the first