Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 179:713 (Jan 2022)
Article: A Sacramental Reading Of John 2–6 And The Extent Of The Atonement
Author: Kyle D. DiRoberts

BSac 179:713 (January-March 2022) p. 29

A Sacramental Reading Of John 2–6 And The Extent Of The Atonement

Kyle D. DiRoberts

Kyle D. DiRoberts is Department Chair and Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Arizona Christian University, Glendale, Arizona.

Abstract

Charles Ryrie described the extent of the atonement as being both limited and unlimited in nature. He likened it to a father preparing a meal for all his children. However, such provision does not result in all his children eating. For Ryrie, one’s refusal does not mean the provision was made only for those who actually eat. A sacramental interpretation of the wedding in Cana (John 2:1–11) and the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1–14) strengthens Ryrie’s illustration.

Introduction

Charles C. Ryrie (1925–2016) was professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary over a period of three decades until his retirement in 1983.1 In his systematic theology, he devotes an entire chapter to a discussion concerning the atonement.2 He notes that the doctrine of limited atonement is far from a “cornerstone doctrine” but rather a “hotly debated one.”3 To demonstrate support for limited atonement, Ryrie cites Berkhof, who argues that the sine qua non of the atonement is “Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all

BSac 179:713 (January-March 2022) p. 30

men?”4 Berkhof believes “that is the question, and that only is the question.”5 But Ryrie believes the answer is clear: “The Atonement was limited, for Christ did not come into the world to save all men.”6 The doctrine of election forms the basis for Ryrie’s conclusion. He proposes a different question: “Did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made?”7 In other words, just because some might reject Christ’s atoning work on the cross, this does not invalidate the amount of provision provided by God....