How can 1 Corinthians 15:3 be reconciled with Calvinism and limited atonement?

score:4

Accepted answer

I've looked in numerous systematic theologies and books on evangelism written by Calvinists, and none of them address this particular issue, even though they address many other challenging verses related to the doctrine of limited atonement.

There are probably two reasons for this:

  • Some Calvinists are okay with saying "Christ died for your sins" to people who are not currently saved.
  • Paul's summary in this passage doesn't logically require that he originally preached, without conditions, "Christ died for your sins."

Regarding the first point, here's how Wayne Grudem puts it:

I do not think we should rush to criticize an evangelist who tells an audience of unbelievers, ‘Christ died for your sins,’ if it is made clear in the context that it is necessary to trust in Christ before one can receive the benefits of the gospel offer. In that sense the sentence is simply understood to mean ‘Christ died to offer you forgiveness for your sins’ or ‘Christ died to make available forgiveness for your sins.’ The important point here is that sinners realize that salvation is available for everyone and that payment of sins is available for everyone. (Systematic Theology, 601)

Of course, other Calvinists disagree with him (he spends a fair amount of space in his ST dealing with this debate). So then how about our second point? Is there another way to understand what Paul is saying here?

There is. Let's look at the verse again, skipping over a few parts:

I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand [...]. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins [...]. (ESV)

It's not actually logically necessary to draw the conclusion that you did. Paul is clearly addressing believers here, people for whom Christ died. When he preached to them, he could have said things that all Calvinists are fine with:

  • "Christ died for the sins of those who believe in him"
  • "Christ died for the sins of the elect"
  • "If you repent and believe, Christ's death cleanses you of your sins"

But now, because he is addressing only those who actually repented and believed, it's fine for him to say "Christ died for our sins." This isn't inconsistent – it's simply referring to the current state of the current audience, and isn't a direct quote.

Here's a (sacreligious) example. A coach says to two sports teams, "If you win, you get a trophy." Then the two teams play, and one wins. Then the coach says, "Congratulations winning team. Here's the trophy I promised you." It's obvious that the coach hasn't lied here. Why not? Because he doesn't need to repeat the condition of the promise (winning) when addressing those who met that condition (the winning team).

In the same way, Paul can simply be understood here as saying, "Believers, as promised, Christ died for our sins." Like the coach, he doesn't need to repeat the condition of the promise (repent and believe) when addressing those who met that condition (believers).

All that to say – we can't logically exclude the possibility that Paul used conditional language (if you are elect, if you repent and believe) in his original preaching to the Corinthians.

More post

Search Posts

Related post