Who Really Limits the Atonement?

The topic of the extent of the atonement has certainly been a point which has sparked many fiery debates among evangelical Christians. The typical understanding of this debate has been that full-fledged Calvinists have limited the atonement, whereas Arminians/Amyraldians (4 point Calvinists) have ascribed to an unlimited atonement. But is this really the case? Let’s take a look at what is actually being suggested by both sides of the argument.

Arminians will argue that Christ died for everyone. However, they necessarily include a proviso: Christ died for everyone, but his dying for them was not sufficient to obtain their salvation. Something has to be added to Christ’s dying for a person in order for eternal salvation to be accomplished – namely, personal faith.

In other words, Arminians will admit that Christ’s death did not purchase everything for the accomplishment of eternal salvation for individual humans. It purchased the possibility of redemption, but not the actuality.

But what do Calvinists say? Basically, we would affirm everything that Arminians say: we would affirm that Christ died to make the atonement possible for all people. He died so that all that was lacking for actual salvation was personal faith. He died so that a genuine offer of the gospel (whosoever will may come) is indeed legitimate.

However, we take the effects of Christ’s death one step further: Christ died not only to secure the possibility of salvation; but more than that, he died to make salvation absolutely certain for a select group of people. That is, he died not only to secure the possibility of salvation for the whole world, but he also died to secure the actual salvation of the elect. He died to make the gospel offer genuine for all people, and certain for the elect. He died to accomplish everything that an Arminian says he died to accomplish; and he also died to provide faith for the elect.

So the question becomes, “Do Calvinists have any scriptures to support their claims?” The answer is emphatically, “Yes!” The earliest references to the New Covenant that we find in the scriptures indicate that its essence is bound up in the sovereign impartation of a new heart and a believing nature. Jeremiah makes this one thing the explicit point of difference between the New and Old Covenants, as we read in the book of his prophecy (Jeremiah 31:31-34),

Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, says Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

To this prophecy Ezekiel lends support as well, proclaiming the promise of God for the days of the New Covenant, namely (Ezekiel 36:26,27),

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.

Hence, when we read that the shedding of Christ’s blood commenced the New Covenant, (as he expressed it to his disciples, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood,” [Luke 22:20,et al]), we have no choice but to recognize that Christ shed his blood to put a heart of faith in all those who would be included in the Covenant. If the New Covenant promised God’s sovereign supply of that which was lacking in the Old Covenant (a “heart of flesh” for all those under its demands), and if Christ died to inaugurate the New Covenant, then Christ must have died to give a new heart of flesh to the covenant members. And this is indeed what we see elsewhere throughout the New Testament: in Acts 5:31 we read, ” Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.” In Acts 11:18, “And when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also has God granted repentance unto life.” And again in Philippians 1:30, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;” These three passages alone should make the matter sufficiently clear.

The next question which may arise is this: “How then do we deal with the “problem passages” for limited atonement that are so often used by opponents of the doctrine?” This is only a brief article, so we will obviously not have the time to deal sufficiently with even one of these passages, but I will at least mention the two most outstanding examples what I perceive to be two basic classes of these texts.

The first class is texts that appear to state that Christ died for those who are clearly not believers. The clearest example of such a text is 2 Peter 4:2, “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.” As I have mentioned before, we do not have time to deal with this passage in detail. However, let us at least refer to a principle we have already alluded to: Christ’s death bought more than just the benefits of the New Covenant for the elect. It did buy those benefits, notably redemption. But that is not all it bought: every breath that every sinner takes, every drop of rain, every ray of the sun, every day of divine patience and forbearance – in short, every good thing sinners enjoy – is a blood-bought gift. Yes, Christ’s death purchased more than just the elect. It purchased benefits for all men. In a sense, it purchased the men themselves, giving him an even more absolute authority to judge them at the end of the world. However, it did not purchase redemption for the reprobate. It did not atone for their sins.

The second class is texts that make claims of atonement (propitiation, etc.) for the whole world. The clearest example is probably 1 John 2:2, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The immediate response of at least the majority of the proponents of a universal redemption to the limited atonement interpretation is, “You’re just redefining ‘all’”. What is seldom recognized is that the unlimited atonement view is redefining “propitiation”. If you tell a sinner burning in hell that God’s wrath against him has been propitiated, it will not be much comfort to him. Neither will it be true. Hell is nothing other than an outpouring of God’s wrath. As long as it lasts, God’s wrath against its inhabitants will be shown not be appeased or propitiated. So what subscribers to universal atonement are saying is not that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of every man indiscriminately, but that he is the possibility of propitiation for the sins of every man indiscriminately. If Christ’s death is mere possibility of propitiation it does not hold forth much comfort. But it is more than that – it is actual propitiation – just not for every man indiscriminately. The fundamental question we need to ask is this, “Given the necessity of understanding one term or the other in a way that is not strictly literal, which term do we find scriptural precedence for understanding differently?” If we look throughout the whole New Testament, we will not find another example of the term for “propitiation” meaning mere possibility of the appeasement of wrath; but if we examine the New Testament we can find many examples of the words “all,” “every,” “world,” etc., being used either with regard to representatives of different classes, or with regard to a specific set only. Which is also how we so frequently use such terms today. If a teacher asks his class, “Is everyone here?”, he is not referring to all men without distinction. New Testament examples of this could be proliferated (Romans 5:18, Colossians 1:23, etc.), but it may be more helpful simply to note a striking parallel with a text elsewhere in Johannine literature, and move on. John 11:51,52 states, “And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” The verbal parallels and coincidence of theological import with our passage should be self-evident.

The term “limited atonement” to describe the Calvinist doctrine is unfortunate. Those who subscribe to that view actually have a view of the atonement which is less limited than the view known as “unlimited atonement”. We believe that Christ died to make salvation possible for all; but because we are so sinful, he did more than that; he died to make salvation certain for some. He died in order actually to propitiate for the sins of the elect. He died to give us faith as well as the benefits of that faith. This point of view accords best with the testimony of scriptures. Although it does not deny that Christ died in any sense for the reprobate – he died to provide benefits for all, to make legitimate the promise of redemption contingent upon believing in Christ for all, etc. – it is better fitted to deal with other texts which speak of Christ’s dying for the elect in a different sense – Romans 8:34, Isaiah 53:10,11, John 10:15, and so on.

9 Responses to “Who Really Limits the Atonement?”

  1. Bob Hayton says:
    November 18, 2005 at 1:49 pm

    Nathan,

    Great article. I was familiar with the argument central to your post. However, I had not seen the covenantal defense of limited atonement presented in such a way.

    Question, though. What do you make of href=”http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/20050204.pdf” title=”The Logic of Limited Atonement”> Kevin Bauder’s article on limited atonement? Is there legitimacy to his provision/application argument?

    Granted, it is somewhat difficult to come up with a clear negation text to argue for limited atonement. I am thinking, Rom. 8:32-34. Is there a clear text which would emphatically state Christ’s death did this much and no more? If a text saying Christ actually meant to propitiate thru his death is put forth, the counter would be yes, but could he not also have died to make provision for all? How explicit of a negation does reason demand? Perhaps another series of texts would be the implied negations stemming from the intentionally chosen metaphorical recipients of Christ’s death (His sheep [Jn. 10], bride [Eph. 5], and church [Acts 20:28]–clearly the implication from the metaphor is that there is no death for the goats, non-bride, and non-church).

  2. Bob Hayton says:
    November 18, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    The link should be

  3. pitchford says:
    November 18, 2005 at 10:27 pm

    As far as that article goes, I can do nothing to argue against it because it asserts nothing positive with regards to arriving at a position on the issue. All it does is deny the legitimacy of arguing in one particular way for limited atonement. However, that particular argument which he invalidates is not used by truly thinking theologians. If he would deal with well-crafted syllogismically-framed arguments for limited atonement, let him deal with such men as John Owen, and not simply quick-tongued bible college students.

    The following excerpt from “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism” by the staff of Bethlehem reframes a couple of Owen’s syllogisms:

    “We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

    1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

    2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

    3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

    No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

    The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God’s punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

    This is one of the arguments with which he should be dealing if he would positively establish a case for universal atonement. However, I do not think that was his intention; I think he only wished to rule out one faulty avenue for arguing for or against the reformed understanding of the atonement.

    Consider some of the passages like Psalm 2, and many of Christ’s monologues in John, in which it becomes patently clear that Christ was sent to accomplish a very definite task of actually redeeming those whom the Father had given to him. Why, for instance, would Christ have explicitly mentioned that he was not praying for God’s acceptance of those who were not his, but only of those who were his, unless he intended to provide salvation for the one group and not for the other. No, it was not his intent to provide, let alone apply, salvation for those who were not his, as we may with some reason infer from this explicit exclusion of them from his high priestly prayer in John 17.

    Read Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and see if anyone arguing for a universal atonement has addressed any of his arguments. If not, there may be a reason for that conspicuous dearth.

  4. Bob Hayton says:
    November 19, 2005 at 10:15 am

    I guess when you try to use Bauder’s distinction between provision and application it breaks down at this point. Once you say Christ died to secure the application of full salvation from all the sins of some men, and leave room for Christ further dying to secure a (potential) provision of full salvation from all the sins of all men (contingent upon application) you have arrived at the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement! Limited atonement, as you argued in your post, agrees that a legitimate offer of salvation can be made to all based upon Christ’s atoning work. But Limited atonement, further specifies that Christ’s work accomplished more than that, it actually secured the provision & application of full salvation for the elect (Christ’s sheep, brethren, those given to Christ by God the Father, those Christ prayed for in Jn 17, Christ’s bride, His church).

    Thanks for the response.

  5. pitchford says:
    November 19, 2005 at 10:43 pm

    Although we must be certain not to fall into the error that says, “Christ died for all the sins of the elect, and all the sins except for unbelief of the non-elect.” Those who are not Christ’s will suffer eternal torment, not just for their unbelief, but for every sin they committed. This is because Christ did not atone for their sins. He did not propitiate the Father’s wrath against them, therefore it still burns hotly against all sins in hell. When Christ died, he made it a true statement, “If you call upon the name of the Lord, you will be saved,” but that is different from saying he atoned for the sins of the whole world, only he did not indiscriminately apply that atonement. The bottom line is, if Christ actually atoned for the sins of unbelievers, either they will not be punished for those sins; or God will punish them unjustly, because they have already been atoned for; or God will reject Christ’s sacrifice as insufficient for them, and hence punish them justly. The latter two are blasphemous. The first is clearly contradicted by scriptures which picture the unsaved as suffering for their sins in hell. Therefore, Christ did not atone for the sins of those who are in hell. He made the gospel-offer genuine for them, but he did not atone for their sins.

  6. Bob Hayton says:
    November 20, 2005 at 9:09 am

    Pitchford said,

    …if Christ actually atoned for the sins of unbelievers, either they will [1] not be punished for those [ie, their own] sins; or [2] God will punish them unjustly, because they [ie, their sins] have already been atoned for; or [3] God will reject Christ’s sacrifice as insufficient for them, and hence punish them justly. The latter two are blasphemous. The first is clearly contradicted by scriptures which picture the unsaved as suffering for their sins in hell.”>

    Bob Hayton: I see this as the crux of the issue. Since Scripture presents the nature of the atonement as efficacious [ie, unlimited in power] and since Scripture affirms a limit to the procured salvation, in that not all are saved–many will be justly punished, we are forced to conclude that the atonement is limited in its extent.

    Thanks for the discussion. It helps to lay things out logically and Scripturally, and then see that the conclusion is very clear. Soli Deo Gloria.

  7. Bob Hayton says:
    November 20, 2005 at 9:11 am

    Sorry, the blockquote should have only been for the first paragraph. The rest is my comment.

  8. Pierre-Sovann says:
    August 31, 2007 at 5:50 am

    Nathan,

    Would you still stay, from a reformed paedobaptist point of view, that what was lacking to the Old Covenant in contrast with the New Covenant was “a “heart of flesh” for all those under its demands” ?

    It’s anyway a great post, as usual…

    Pierre-Sovann

  9. pitchford says:
    September 3, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Pierre,

    I guess that point demands some refinement, but this is basically how I see it now:

    Those who were hoping to be justified by the demands of the Old (that is, Mosaic) Covenant were never able to, because they lacked the “heart of flesh” necessary to delight in God’s laws. But those who were heirs of the Abrahamic promise through faith were justified by faith (as was Abraham himself), and were given a new heart of flesh (as circumcision signified), which enabled them to begin fulfilling the law, to an extent, from a true heart of faith. I guess a good part of my shift to the paedo-baptist point of view involved seeing a distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Law, which ran concurrently with it for many years, but never abrogated it.

Leave a Reply