Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

21 thoughts on “Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)”

1. The Universallist point was where, after much consideration, I realized I was definitely Calvinist. For, if the atonement was not limited, and the grace for repentance and faith was not purchased on the cross…it would naturally follow that we would have to be Universallist…all would automatically be saved and there would be no point in preaching the gospel message. In fact…no one could be born a sinner, since Jesus had already universally paid for all, and the creation would not be groaning in expectation for the revalation of the sons of God…That my friends is what is called heresy…for it is not scriptural and simply brings confusion…The Arminian point simply limits salvation to human ability.

2. Good points, Nancy.

3. It could be said that Calvinists limit the atonement in terms of Quantity, and Arminians limit the atonement’s Quality, or effectiveness.

4. It’s interesting that you’re writing a series on this now, Bob, since I’m actually in the process of doing the same thing. If you’ll permit a dissenting opinion, allow me to make some observations:

   The term “limited atonement” in the sense you mean is not the only sense in which it has historically been used. Many of the great Calvinist theologians of history, including Calvin himself, explicitly or implicitly support a view of the atonement wherein Christ really did pay for the sin of all people without quantification, but with the salvific intent being limited to the elect.

   Naturally, you will ask how this can be. Nancy, above, concludes,

   For, if the atonement was not limited, and the grace for repentance and faith was not purchased on the cross…it would naturally follow that we would have to be Universallist…all would automatically be saved and there would be no point in preaching the gospel message. In fact…no one could be born a sinner, since Jesus had already universally paid for all, and the creation would not be groaning in expectation for the revalation of the sons of God

   This reflects a view called pecuniary atonement—the idea that the atonement can be accurately represented as a sort of one-to-one, pain-for-pain, sin-for-sin event. This view draws from the ransom language which Scripture employs. However, I think it takes this language too literally. I favor a view of judicial atonement, where the penalty paid is not like a monetary transaction, but like a penal transaction. That is, the wages of sin is death, and Christ died as if he were a sinner. This being the case, and since he is a human being, his atonement is one which can, in practice, be applied to any person whatsoever—though of course it will be applied only to the elect through faith.

   Notice that Nancy’s own position is not immune from her criticisms. Under her view, “if the atonement was not limited, and the grace for repentance and faith was not purchased on the cross…it would naturally follow that we would have to be Universallist…all would automatically be saved and there would be no point in preaching the gospel message.” But if this is true, it is just as true if the atonement was limited—except for the fact that only the elect would automatically be saved. Why then evangelism? Similarly, if in the case of a universal atonement, “in fact…no one could be born a sinner, since Jesus had already universally paid for all”, then in the same way for a limited atonement, none of the elect could be born a sinner, since Jesus had already paid for them. This of course contradicts Ephesians 2:3.

   Regards,
   Bnonn

5. Can predestination be involved as part of limited atonement limited

   atonement?

6. @Kevin: You’re correct – it is often said that Calvinists limit the scope of the atonement, whereas Arminians limit the power of the atonement.

7. Bnonn,

   I admit, I’m open to 4.5 point type views. I’m going to read your blog series when I have some time.

   Also, you rightly point out a flaw in Nancy’s reasoning. And truth be told, Arminians don’t hold to universalism, rather to a unlimited atonement, wherein the ones who are saved are those who respond. I’ll give Nancy the benefit of the doubt as she was responding to what I had posted so if anyone led her astray I did!

   While open to some kind of multiple intentions view of the atonement, I actually think the limited atonement espoused by most Calvinists today basically says the same thing. Full atonement and propitiation, which purchases/makes available all the graces the elect receive (including faith and repentance), is only intended for God’s elect. Yet this atoning cross-work secures the benefits of common grace and a sincere offer of the gospel for all.

   Furthermore, limited atonement seems more congruous with God’s eternal aim of effecting the salvation of his chosen people for His own glory and their eternal joy’s sake. John 17 sure seems to read as if Christ viewed his priestly work as pertaining to the elect alone.

   If both 4.5 and 5 point Calvinism affirm that Christ singularly purchased his church, died to purify only his bride, and laid down his life for his sheep, and not the non-believers (who do not believe because they aren’t his sheep), then we’re pretty much quibbling over semantics and fine nuances. That being said, I’m going to try to be sure and read your posts.

   From a polemical standpoint, the 4.5 point view also seems to affirm the misunderstanding of the atonement that Arminians have. Christ does more than secure a potential salvation for his people, if only they accept him. Christ actually saves his people from their sins.

   Stay tuned for part 2, everyone…

8. Hey Bob. I’ve often thought that a lot of the apparent disagreements between people like me and people like you are rather nit-picky as theology goes. And people have asked me if I don’t think I’m splitting hairs. I obviously agree in large part with particularists; why write a whole series on the matter explaining the nuances of my disagreement?

   I think it’s important to explicate these nuances, though, because although the differences between the views are subtle, they are actually quite significant. If the arguments I forward in my series are sound, then the particularist view logically entails a number of theologically deviant and unsettling conclusions: specifically that it removes all grounds for a universal preaching of the gospel, either as a command or as an invitation; and that it removes the objective grounds for Christian faith. I actually think that particularism logically entails a form of hyper-Calvinism, if you take it to its necessary conclusions. So the way we understand the mechanism of the atonement seems, to me, to be quite important, even if the way we understand the intentions and application of it is largely the same.

   Regards,
   Bnonn

9. I agree its important to think through these things, and plan to. I still lean more toward the particularist view as you define it, but then I think even how you are defining the views is not entirely correct. There can be more nuances there within each view than you allow. Anyways, we can grow as we learn to listen to each others’ perspective. And this is what I hope to accomplish in this series, to gain the ear and respect of those who otherwise write all Calvinists off as heretics.

10. Yea! I intend to read both of you guy’s series and am really excited to do so. Bnonn hit the three points in his first post that are exactly my concern, While I think we can all agree that the answers are in the hands of a sovereign God, many times when we research the Word, we do find ample scripture to back more than one point of view. As we continue to look into these things we find ourselves being changed and brought closer together as we begin to see Jesus as he is.

    And just to set the record straight, Bnonn, the Universalist view I was describing was more in line with Unitarianism than what you outlined in your part one. As for the preaching of the Gospel…when a loving and all knowing Father commands it…we follow even if we don’t understand the mechanics. It is not for us to always know His intentions, but it is for us to be as obedient as we can and follow clear direction. The answers to the conundrums lie in His hands and somewhere above our understanding the answer is always yes to those things we uncover in scripture and He is always GOOD.

11. Hi Nancy, I agree that it’s not always for us to know God’s intentions. However, he has given us Scripture so that he may know some of them, and it seems to me that his intentions regarding salvation are very much something we’re intended to know, since that’s what the gospel is all about. I’m happy to concede that at the end of my series I may still have unanswered questions, and that the answers may not be for me to know—but I do think that it is the responsibility of Christians to discern what they can about God’s intentions, only stopping when they move from what is revealed into speculation.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

12. In saying that unlimited atonement implies “Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone,” imho you’re splitting semantic hairs.

    If Christ’s sacrifice made possible the only means of salvation available to human beings, then anyone who receives that salvation was “saved” (transitive sense).

    Imagine someone who has fallen overboard into the sea and is sure to drown. You throw a life preserver to him that is attached to a rope. He grabs hold of it and you pull him to safety. Did you “save” this person, or did you merely “make salvation possible”?

    I suppose the Calvinist flip-side of that analogy would be someone who is unconscious and about to drown. Throwing a life preserver to such a person would serve no purpose, as he is incapable of grabbing hold of it. So, to save such a person, one must swim out and physically haul him back to the ship.

    In both cases, though, its accurate to say that the life-preserver-thrower or swim-out-and-haul-in-er “saved” the drowning person.

13. Thanks for getting back to me.

    I am going to present something I wrote quite a while ago which explains my overview of Scripture on all this. It is quite lengthy but I hope it helps to show where I am coming from.

    I look forward to your response:

    My Talk With God

    Imagine the following fictional scene:

    I was caught up into the third heaven like the man Paul mentions in 2 Cor 12:2-4. Unlike that man, God wanted me to come back and tell this story. Here’s how it went:

    God said, “ Jim, I have called you here because I know there is much heated debate and argument about one important subject. I understand that you believe and teach that my Son died ONLY for my beloved Church and not for the whole world. Therefore I have some questions for you:”

    “What did I tell you in My Word in 1 John 2:2?”
    I answered “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”

    God said, “ Why do you not believe what I said?”

    “Where, IN MY WORD, did I say something that would cause you to doubt what I said in I John 2:2? Where did I say that Christ died ONLY for a select group and NOT the WHOLE WORLD? On what basis do you doubt my literal words in 1 John 2:2?”

    I had no answer.

    God continued, “ I was very careful in the words I used – like I always am!” “I said ALL THE WORLD for a reason. Notice I did not say ‘All the Church” or ‘All the Elect’”

    He continued, “ But Jim I didn’t stop with 1 John 2:2. What does John write in I John 4:14?”

    I answered, “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”

    God said, “Twice, in the same book, I had John write ‘world’. Both times you claim that I didn’t really mean world. You claim I really meant something else. It seems that John just couldn’t express what I really meant. Everybody should just know, somehow, that John meant something else.”

    “Down on earth, you have said that Ephesians 5:25 says that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. You have used this verse and others to say that Christ died ONLY for the church. Jim, words are important; did I say Christ died ONLY for the church? Not here. Not anywhere.

    “In Gal 2:20 Paul recognized my love for him and that Christ gave Himself for him. You would never teach that Christ died ONLY for Paul. I have said He died for Paul. I have said He died for the church. But I have also said that He died for the world. Why do you believe some of what I have said but question other parts. What criteria have you set up to accept some passages whole-heartedly but others you feel you must ‘reinterpret’?”

    “I have laid out My Truth as exactly as I can. You seem to have trouble with the word ‘World’. You seem to think I did not mean all men when I said world, so I ask what did I tell you in 1 Tim 4:10?”

    I answered, “that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe”

    God continued, “I clearly said ALL and I clearly said MEN. If Christ was NOT the Savior of all men, I would NOT have had Paul write ‘the Savior of all men’. But to make sure that there would be no misunderstanding, I had Paul add ‘and especially those that believe.’ If I had meant Savior of all believers why would I have had Paul add ‘and especially those that believe.’. I said all men because I meant all men. I had Paul add that phrase so that it would be perfectly clear what I meant. Why have you taken what I have clearly said and made it say something that makes no sense? Why would I say that my Son ‘is the Savior of all believers, especially those who believe’?” By the way, I also made sure to use the word Savior that I always use for salvation.”

    “Jim, why did My Son tell His disciples to ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ What is the Gospel that you are to tell every creature? If the Gospel message is ONLY true for the elect why did I have Paul write, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them’. Jim, why would Satan hide the Gospel from the lost? Why would it make any difference if it shined on them? Or to put it another way; why does Satan bother blinding them if the Gospel doesn’t include them anyway?”

    Again I had no answer.

    God continued,“I could keep showing you more and more verses from my Word that teach Christ died for ALL men – the whole world but, to review, look what I have said so far:

    “I have said, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world”

    “You have said that I really didn’t mean the whole world.”

    “I have said, Christ is the Savior of the World.”

    “You have said that I really didn’t mean the world.”

    “I have said , He is the Savior of ALL MEN”

    “You have said that I really didn’t mean all men.”

    “Jim, DO YOU SEE A PATTERN DEVELOPING HERE?”

    “I say something then you say I really didn’t mean that?

    “What did I tell you in 2 Pet 2:1?”

    I answered, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

    God continued, “I told you here that these false teachers were condemned because they denied that I had bought them. I used the same word I used for your redemption. The price was paid, but they denied it. They did not believe it! They rejected my salvation.”

    “I told you that people are condemned because they don’t believe. Notice how clearly I stated this in John 3:18. ‘He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

    “In 1 John 5:10, I have said; ‘He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.’ It all comes down to ‘Does a person believe My Word about My Son?”
    “The false teachers deny and reject what My Son has done for them! They reject who He is and what He has done and are justly condemned.”

    “My Son told you in John 12:47-48:

    ‘And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
    He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.’”

    “The judgment comes for not believing that my Son came to save the world which includes you, Paul, the Church and even false teachers.”

    “I have said that:

    1 Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
    2 Christ is the Savior of the world
    3 Christ is the Savior of all men
    4 Even false teachers have been bought by the Lord

    “Jim, I have said, as clearly as I can, the above truths. You have taught that none of the above statements are true. You say that they actually mean something else. This is a very disturbing pattern. How many other passages must I show you before you acknowledge that I meant what I said. You claim you believe that I inspired my Word right down to the very letter, yet you seem to have no hesitation about changing the clear statements above to fit some preconceived notion that I could not mean what I clearly have said.”

    “Jim, do you realize that you are basically saying that John, Paul & Peter all got it wrong. Think of what you are actually saying:

    John got it wrong when he wrote ‘the whole world’.
    Paul got it wrong when he wrote ‘all men’.
    Peter got it wrong when he wrote even ‘false teachers’.

    “In other words, you are saying that none of my apostles got it right. Each one really meant something completely different. They were my apostles, yet none of them wrote what you say I really meant. Stop for just a minute, Jim what if they really did write what I meant? What if I really meant that my Son died for the whole world. All of the sudden, John, Paul, & Peter got it EXACTLY right!

    “I have stated with the clearest language possible that Christ died for the whole world – for ALL MEN. Jim, WHAT WORDS WOULD YOU USE to say that Christ died for the sins of the whole world/all men, that I have not used? Can you say it any clearer? “
    “Again Jim; if I meant to teach you that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, what verses would I have used that are not found in my Word already?”

    As I returned to earth, all my previous ‘arguments’ that had seemed so rational melted away in light of the clarity of God’s Word. I thought I had such an ‘airtight theology’.When I had come to these passages individually, I thought I could just readjust the words a little and all would still fit ‘my theology”. But when I was shown just how many verses I was not taking literally as God had stated them, I began to be troubled. I had to ask myself; who decides what part of God’s Word we take literally and what part don’t we? What are the ground rules for not taking God’s Word literally? I came to see that it wasn’t God’s Word that needed to be ‘adjusted’, rather it was ‘my theology’.

    I resolved never to contradict the clear verses of God’s Word again. I may have lots of unanswered questions but I still must proclaim what God has said. I never want to change God’s Word just because I don’t understand it, just because I can’t explain questions that arise from what God clearly says. I cannot change what God has said just so I can understand what I think God has said. True exegesis must always trump my still-evolving theology. I must simply proclaim that I don’t understand it all, that I am still learning.

    The End

14. Jim,

    You cover some important ground in your piece here. These are important points I don’t want to neglect them.

    You are however only presenting one side of the picture. You say Christ propitiated God’s wrath for each and every person in the world. We must define what propitiate means, however. Is this a potential propitiation or an actual one?

    You confuse the gospel message being preached with whether Christ died for certain people. We don’t know who ultimately are beneficiaries of the propitiating work of Christ so we preach indiscriminately to all. Jesus said of some, you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. You cannot hear because you are not of me. Does this make us not tell the gospel to these people who are unable to believe? No.

    I ask you to wait for me to get to the next post in my series here. Also please listen to the arguments I’m making, rather than just restating yours again. Pause to hear what it is that limited atonement is saying. At the end of the day we both affirm that Christ’s death brings benefits to all, and special benefits to those who believe. I just hold that Jesus’ death actually provides the very faith we exercise, it graces us with the very response God requires. Based on Rom. 8:7, how can one who is unable to please God please Him? How can he have faith who is estranged from God and without hope? Jesus and His death.

    The glories of the cross we both affirm. I hope to explain why we are compelled to find a fuller and deeper explanation of those seemingly simple statements that Christ died for all the world. Stay tuned.

    Unfortunately, due to holiday traveling I’ll have to wait until next week, probably, to post the follow up to this post.

    Blessings in Christ and may you have a glorious celebration of Christ’s advent,

    Bob Hayton

15. “The End”

    JimThis is the age of endless comment..We may drop off in silence…but, it is never….The End……*; )…

16. I know this posts in not exactly on the same subject, but I hope you’ll answer the following questions to help me (and other atheists) understand the believer’s views a bit clearer…
    http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/6-hopefully-semi-quick-questions-for-theists/

    Thanks in advance!

17. I don’t have the time to blog like I used to, but since I do have some issues with Calvinism I will try to address this quickly. Since the topic is on the Limited vs Unlimited Atonement, I’ll voice my problems with both views. I don’t have all the answers, but I don’t accept either Calvinism or Arminianism as definitive theologies.

    First, I agree that while the Bible certainly says “whosoever will may come” and ” in order that the world might be saved through him”, Jesus also said ” No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” and especially “To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” (John 10:3), “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me”
    (John 10:14), and lastly “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16)

    Christ specifically said He had some sheep that He was looking for. Else why say “”I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)?? The gospel that Jesus was preaching was specifically for Israel while He was on the earth, although He alluded to the fact that sheep outside of Israel would also be called. But He was confident that those sheep would also hear His voice and be joined to the flock of lost sheep from Israel. (John 10:16)

    The issue that always seems to be ignored in this type of analysis is the fact that Jesus implied there were righteous people who did not need to be saved: “And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) As for who these people were, according to God’s Word, see Mark 6:20 and Luke 1:6, 2:25, 15:7, 23:50.

    In any case, the argument could be made that free will does enter into the equation from two examples of Jesus’ healings.

    First, we have the woman with the bloody discharge who A. did not get Jesus’ attention and B. was not addressed by Jesus, who obtained her healing by her own faith (Christ’s words!) and secretly (at least from her point of view).

    Second, we have the Canaanite woman (Matt 15:22-28) who approached Jesus, was rebuffed twice by Him, and by her perseverance impressed Jesus’ with the strength (greatness) of her faith!

    If faith is something only God can give why did Christ then marvel or act surprised at people’s faith or lack thereof? Even the lack of faith in His own disciples? See Matt 8:10, Mark 6:6, Luke 7:9, and Luke 8:25.

    When Calvinists talk about people being “dead in sin” they infer this to mean that people are completely helpless animals who must be given “ears to hear” through pre-conversion regeneration. If that were true then a person really has no choice but to believe the gospel and be saved. But, I fail to see any scripture that supports forced conversion. There were many forced “conversions” in the Dark and Middle Ages and some would still like to make Christianity mandatory today. But I digress.

    To my knowledge there is no scripture that says we “must believe” except Hebrews 11:6 and it is obvious that the writer is talking about a requirement for pleasing God. If the requirement is supplied by God, then why should it even be mentioned to mere mortals? It is obvious that the person who comes to God for salvation must believe in God’s existence and have faith that He will do what He says. I believe the Bible makes it plain that faith is something man is expected to produce within himself with the help of the Word and Spirit.

    Ephesians 2:8 is the bedrock scripture for the idea that God “gifts” faith to men. And well He may, when a man is created, I submit. Careful exegesis of this scripture, starting in v.4, shows that Paul is referring to mercy and grace, which are received through faith. The gift is Mercy and Grace which come through our faith, our believing in spite of ourselves.

    All that to say this: Jesus’ Atonement is all sufficient, covers the entire human race, but must be received through faith. The Atonement IS this Mercy and Grace because both are an undeserved gift that brings us back into fellowship with God. But we, us, you and me HAVE to believe on our own. And Jesus made it also plain that only those with an “honest and good heart” would profit from hearing the Word (Luke 8:15). Paul says “for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? ” (Romans 10:13-14)

    Hearing the Word preached is what gives water to the seed of faith that all “honest and good” hearts possess. These are, I believe, the elect. The non-elect have either lost the faith they received at one time or willfully choose to suppress it just as the Pharisees stubbornly did.

    Thanks for allowing us to comment on this Bob.

18. Prodigal,

    Thanks for commenting. I’ll be picking up this series soon, hopefully.

    I would say there are several other passages besides Eph. 2 which teach faith is a gift. I discuss some of them in my article on Regeneration, Reception and Faith.

    Blessings,

    Bob Hayton

19. Pingback: God Working in Us: Philippians 2:13 And the Will « Fundamentally Reformed
20. Pingback: Why “Limited Atonement” (part 2) « Fundamentally Reformed

Comments are closed.