The main problem with "limited atonement" is the word "atonement"

One of the main reasons why speaking about "limited atonement" often generates confusion rather than clarity is because people fail to realise that "atonement" has two meanings. What most people mean when they use "atonement" today is not what the word originally meant.

"Atonement" originally meat "reconciliation" or as the word itself suggests "at-one-ment" (referred to as "Meaning One" in this post). I believe it was introduced into English Bible translations by William Tyndale, who used it to translate the Greek word, "katallagē" in Romans 5:11.

However, in every day speech today, "atonement" refers to the work that someone does to make up for their wrongdoing (referred to in this post as "Meaning Two"). A husband who has let down his wife may have to atone for what he has done. If he is successful in his work of atonement, reconciliation should follow. 

If the two meanings are applied to Jesus' death on the cross, Meaning Two is all about the work that Jesus did on the cross. Meaning One is all about what was achieved as a result of that work. 

Therefore, whereas "reconciliation" and "atonement" were synonymous when "atonement" was first introduced into English translations of the Bible, today they are not synonymous, but rather reconciliation is the result of atonement. In modern English Meaning One is archaic and Meaning Two is current. 

My observation of listening to people who teach on limited atonement is that they refer to the archaic meaning when they first introduce the atonement, highlighting that the word literally means at-one-ment, but when they use the word  subsequently, they nearly always intend the current meaning, i.e. Meaning Two. 

The different meanings of the word "atonement" have a determining impact on whether the three different views in one of my previous posts can properly be described as "limited atonement." If Meaning One is intended, all three views can rightly be described as limited atonement because all three teach that the number of people who are finally reconciled to God through Jesus death is limited. 

However, if Meaning Two is intended, i.e. the work done by Jesus, the situation is more complex, because one may be referring to the power of this work or the number of people for whom this work is done. In regard to the power of Jesus' work, all three views are unlimited atonement because the work done was powerful enough to save everyone who believes. In regard to the number of people for whom this work is done, only View 3 can rightly be described as limited atonement, because aside from the glory of God, the work is carried out for and motivated by God's love for the elect only, whereas with Views 1 and 2 the work is, in some sense at least, carried out for everyone and motivated by God's love for everyone. With Views 1 and 2, the work is intended for everyone, is powerful enough to save everyone, everyone should be told that it was carried out for them, but it saves only those who believe. With View 3, the work is intended for the elect only, is powerful enough to save everyone, only the elect should be told that it was carried out for them and is saves only the elect. 

Given the confusion surrounding the word "atonement" it may be better if we avoided this word altogether when talking about the cross. Instead of asking whether atonement is limited or unlimited, it may be better to ask questions like:

• Whose sin is taken away by Jesus' death?
• From whom is God's wrath turned aside as a result of Jesus death?
• Were our sins taken away from us in the hour Christ died, or do our sins remain on us until the point when we are united to Christ by faith?
• Do the elect live under both God's love and his wrath until they are born again, at which point all wrath is removed so that only love remains, or do the elect only ever live under his love and never under his wrath?
• Is reference to the belief that God is outside of time the resolution to the third and forth questions above, or is this just a cop-out?
• Do the evangelists in the Bible ever use "Jesus has died for you" to prove to unbelievers that God loves them and that they should come to him, or do the evangelists only ever call people to repentance and and assure them that if they do repent Jesus' death will cover all their sins?
• Is it the case that (a) all the elect were fully reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died and no one else is reconciled to God in any sense; (b) no-one not yet born was in any way reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died as they are only reconciled when they are born again; (c) every single person who has ever lived and will ever lived was partially reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died, but full reconciliation comes only when a person is united to Christ?

Spirit, soul and body

I recently saw a facebook post asking, “So are we body, mind, and soul, or the same 3 plus spirit? Discuss:”

Here are my tentative thoughts.

1. The phrase “body, mind and soul” doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible, but the following phrases do appear:

a. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. - Deuteronomy 6:5

b. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. - Mark 12:30

c. Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Thessalonians 5:23

All of the above quotes are from the ESV.

In the Deuteronomy quote, the key Hebrew words are as follows:

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966

The reference numbers are from Strong's concordance which gives a number to every Hebrew and Greek word in the Bible so that you can see if two words are the same even if you don't read the original languages. You can get this free with E-sword.

If you also add in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the table looks like this:

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411

2. When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 in Mark 12:30 in response to the question, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” he adds the word “mind” (dianoia, G1271) to heart, soul and strength (strength translating ischus, G2479). It's worth considering why he does this. We should rule out the explanation that Jesus thought that the command given through the Spirit in Deuteronomy was inadequate and needed to be expanded, because that does not fit with Jesus' high view of Scripture. A better explanation is that the Hebrew word “lebab” could only fully be translated into first-century Greek by using the two Greek words “kardia” (heart) and “dianoia” (mind). I can see that there is an argument for saying that it is “nephesh” rather than “kardia” that can only fully be translated with two Greek words, given that “mind” comes immediately after “soul” rather than “heart,” but for the reasons set out in point 3 below, I tentatively think that mind goes with heart rather than soul.

Adding an extra row for equivalent Greek phrases, the table looks like this.

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411
Equivalent first-century Greek words	kardia and dianoia (heart and mind)		ischus (strength)

3. I think that (i) heart/mind, (ii) soul and (iii) strength/might in Deuteronomy and Mark correspond with (i) spirit, (ii) soul and (iii) body in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The reason I think this is simply because there is a threefold list describing the whole person that has “psyche” in the middle of it, just as there is in Deuteronomy, and so one would expect that the word preceding “psyche” has something to do with heart/mind and that the word following it has something to do with might/strength, and this is in fact the case.

Spirit corresponding to heart and mind

Putting the soul aside for one moment, I think that Christians have to accept that a human being consists of a spirit and a body. What I mean by spirit and body here are illustrated by what happens to a Christian at death. When a Christian dies, his body rots in the ground, but his spirit goes to be with the Lord. The spirit that goes to be with the Lord is the heart of the man, i.e. the centre of who he really is and the spirit is not mindless, but can communicate with the Lord and worship him.

Body corresponding with strength

I think it is self-evident that the body corresponds with might and strength and that all of these terms are to do with our actions as opposed to our thoughts/attitudes. If Deuteronomy just called on people to love God with their heart and soul, one might come to the conclusion that our actions don't matter very much and so the Lord includes “might” in Deuteronomy which corresponds with “body” in 1 Thessalonians.

The table now starts to look like this.

English	heart	soul	might
Hebrew	lebab	nephesh	mod
Strong's reference	H3824	H5315	H3966
Septuagint	kardia	psyche	dynamis
Strong's reference	G2588	G5590	G1411
Equivalent first-century Greek words	kardia and dianoia (heart and mind)		ischus (strength)
Related words	pneuma (spirit)		soma (body)

4. Having put “soul” aside, we now need to return to it and consider what it means. When I was looking into this, the meaning of “soul” was what surprised me the most. I realised that the words translated “soul” in our English translations (“nephesh” in Hebrew and “psyche” in Greek) do not correspond to what most people mean when they use the word “soul” in everyday conversation.

In relation to human beings, “nephesh” first appears in Genesis 2:7 and is translated as “soul” in the King James Version:

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

The phrase “living soul” translates the Hebrew phrase, “chay nephesh”.

However, although this is the first time that “nephesh” is used in relation to human beings, Genesis 2:7 is not its first occurrence; it is used in Genesis 1:20 and 21 to refer to fish and in 1:24 to refer to animals. In other words in Genesis 1 and 2, “soul” |(“nephesh”) simply means a creature and “chay nephesh” means a living creature. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ESV translates Genesis 2:7 as follows:

“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”

It seems clear from this that the way that “soul” is used in the Bible (or at least in the verses considered above) is very different from the way that “soul” is used in everyday current English.

In the Bible, “soul” simply means a creature refers to human and animal life. To lose your soul is simply to die and to save your soul is simply to stay alive. Using the Bible's definition of “soul” (as it appears in English translations) it makes no sense to ask if an animal has a soul, because an animal is a soul.

However, when “soul” is used in everyday current English, I think what is meant is much closer to what the Bible means by “spirit”.

I have not looked at every verse in the Bible that mentions “nephesh” and “psyche”. Although “nephesh” refers to “every living creature” (Genesis 2:19), when it comes to people, I have a suspicion that it can also refer to one's mood or emotions (see Psalm 42:5) and that the meaning of the word developed a greater range of meaning over the period during which the Old Testament was written, so that it has a wider range of meaning in the Psalms than it has in Genesis. Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if the use of the word “psyche” in the New Testament sometimes corresponds more closely to what it meant in the Septuagint and at other times corresponds more closely to the secular Greek conception of the soul. I need to look into this further and my conclusions above may well need to be modified.

5. So to answer the question posed on facebook, my tentative conclusion is that each living human being, together with every other living creature is a soul. Every human soul consists of a body and a spirit. In our spirits, we worship God with our hearts/minds and with our bodies with worship God with our strength/might through our actions.

6. There is at least one verse that doesn't fit very well with my conclusion that the mind is linked to the heart and that both are part of the spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14:14 Paul writes,

“If I pray in a tongue, my spirit (pneuma) prays but my mind (nous) is unfruitful,”

drawing a distinction between the mind and the spirit. Although the word for mind here, “nous” is different from the word for mind in Mark 12:30, “dianoia”, I don't think that this removes the challenge to my conclusion. However, the fact that Paul distinguishes here between mind and spirit does not necessarily mean that the mind is not part of the spirit. I think it means that one can pray with the spirit without praying with the mind, because the mind is not the totality of the spirit, but when one prays with the mind a part of one's spirit is involved, because the mind is located in the spirit.

7. Everything I've said above are just my thoughts based on looking at the Bible and Strong's concordance, which are freely available on E-sword. I should probably go and read some proper articles on this now!