Introduction
What is atonement?
Atonement is the removal of guilt. This happens by way of punishment. When the guilty undergo their punishment, we say that their sin is atoned for or removed; they are no longer guilty. A man who steals a woman’s purse might be sentenced to a five year prison term and 100 hours of community service. When he has completed this sentence, we say that he has made atonement for his sin, and he is set free. The law has nothing more against him; justice has been satisfied. Sometimes the word “expiate” is used as a synonym with atonement. Both words refer to the removal of guilt.
What is atonement in the Bible?
In the Bible, atonement is almost always referring to the removal of man’s sin against God.
How is man’s sin against God atoned for?
Man’s sin against God can only be atoned for by death which is what God told Adam and Eve when He placed them in the garden. (Genesis 2:17) The only possible exception to this is if God Himself provides another way for the atonement of our sin.
Has God provided another way by which our sin can be atoned for?
He has, and this is the good news or the gospel. This way of atonement is laid out in the first chapters of Leviticus where God promises to forgive sin when the Israelites repent and bring the prescribed sacrifice. These animal sacrifices then serve as the basis for our understanding of what Jesus has done in the place of His people.
How so?
Because the innocent animal is struck dead in the place of the guilty person. At the heart of this is a substitution of the innocent for the guilty. God accepts the death of the animal in the place of the death of the guilty person. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches us that He is the Lamb from God who takes away (or atones for) the sin of the world. (John 1:36) Edersheim writes (p81): “the fundamental idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament is that of substitution.”
What then is the precise point at issue in the discussion of limited atonement?
The issue here is where to place the limitation on the work of Christ in atoning for our sin; hence, the term limited atonement.
Why must a limitation be placed on what Jesus did?
Because Scripture is clear that not everyone is saved. Hence, we must either limit:
- the number of people saved by Jesus, or
- the saving work of Jesus itself.
Those who adopt option #1 mean that Jesus actually and really saves all His people. This is the Reformed position. Those who adopt #2 teach that Jesus made an atonement for all people, but that the atonement in and of itself is not actually saving. It makes people savable or makes the salvation of all people possible but not actual. More is required for the actual salvation of any particular person. This is the Arminian position as, for example, Richard Watson who clearly says (p33) that “Christ died in an equal sense for every man.”
If we deny both of these options, then we would be forced to conclude that Jesus died for everyone and that everyone is finally saved?
That is correct.
Where does Scripture lead us on this point?
Scripture clearly leads us to place the limitation on the number of those saved by Jesus’ atoning work. We dare not place any limitation on the work of Jesus itself.
Why should we tremble to place the limitation on the work of Jesus itself?
Because the authors of Scripture rejoice in the death of Jesus as one of the unassailable assurances that we will never be lost. If we limit the power of Jesus’ atonement to save, then this assurance is deceptive.
Consider the teaching of the following verses on this point.
Romans 8
What does Romans 8 teach us about the atonement of Christ?
Consider Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 8: “who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus that died…” (Romans 8:34) Clearly, the reason why Paul can rejoice in the assurance that he will never be condemned for his sin is because he knows that Jesus died for him. But if the saving death of Jesus applies as much to Paul as it does to everyone else, including many who will one day be condemned, then his assurance has no foundation. Paul could still very well be condemned for his sin even if Jesus did die for him. In fact, on the Arminian position, thousands will be condemned even though Christ with the intent to save them.
2 Corinthians 5
What does Paul teach us in 2 Corinthians 5?
Paul speaks about the death of Christ twice in this chapter. The first is this:
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. (2 Corinthians 5:11-15)
Here Paul opens his heart to the Corinthian church. He tells them that the love which Christ shows to sinners drives him forward in preaching the gospel to all who will hear. Paul’s reasoning is this. If Jesus died for all people, which is assumed to be true, then we know that all people must have first died in Adam. Otherwise, the death of Jesus would be unnecessary. Therefore, Paul will show the same love for the fallen sons of Adam which Jesus shows in giving His life for all. This is what drives Paul to preach the gospel to every person under the sun.
Clearly, the benefits of Jesus’ death are here understood to be as wide as the effects of Adam’s breach of the covenant of works.
Yes, this is true. This is one reason why some theologians have used the “legal obstacles” language.
What is meant by “legal obstacles?”
This means that the death of Christ has cleared away the legal obstacles to anyone’s salvation. Every person bears their sin and must be punished for their guilt; but because of the death of Jesus, the way is now clear for God to forgive the guilt of any person He chooses. In this sense, the death of Jesus is “for” every person who has died in Adam. This kind of language is often associated with the governmental theory of the atonement.
Is the governmental theory correct then?
This verse and Paul’s teaching in Romans 3 lend some support to the governmental theory. The problem with the governmental theory is not so much in what it affirms but in what it leaves unsaid.
What other teaching about the atonement do we find in 2 Corinthians 5?
Immediately following the verses expounded above, Paul writes this:
Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:14-21)
Here we have the work of Christ under the analogy of reconciliation. Paul teaches that God the Father was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. We have the same language and theology here as in John 3:16.
Paul teaches here that God is reconciling the world to Himself. He then says that God does not count their trespasses against them. But if God is not counting someone’s trespasses against them, does that not mean they are saved? And if this is true, then it seems that God has forgiven the guilt of the entire world. How are we to understand this?
Paul’s teaching here is that God has sent His Son to provide salvation for everyone. No one may exclude themselves from the saving mercy of God. When a person comes to embrace this message in faith, their trespasses are not counted against them; i.e. their sins are forgiven. Now this is the content of Paul’s preaching which he proclaims far and wide. Paul says something similar in chp 1: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written… (Romans 1:17) “from faith to faith” means that the righteousness of God is manifested every time someone comes to faith in Christ. Immediately, the gift of righteousness from God is given from faith to faith that is from believer to believer. In the same way, God has reconciled the world by providing a sacrifice of infinite sufficiency, and whenever anyone believes this message, their trespasses are not imputed to them.
Romans 3
What does Romans 3 teach us about the atonement of Christ?
Paul writes:
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21-26)
Here Paul shows again that all legal obstacles have been removed from the full justification of any sinner. This removal has taken place in the death of Jesus. Paul mentions the redemption which is in Christ Jesus and gives two purposes for this redemption. First, it was a propitiation. Second, it was to demonstrate God’s justice in light of the fact that He passed over previous sins without punishing them. As a result of Jesus’ blood/death, God can both maintain His perfect justice and at the same time justify sinful (Romans 4:5) and guilty people. From this teaching of Paul comes the language of all legal obstacles being removed from the entire human race by the death of Jesus.
Titus 2
What do we learn about Christ’s death from Titus 2?
Paul writes here:
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14)
Here we have two ideas expressed:
First, God’s grace has come to every person who hears the gospel. This is the meaning of the expression bringing salvation to all men. The “all men” here does not mean every person who has ever lived. It refers to all kinds of men who come under the preaching of the gospel. Clearly, Paul is not saying that everyone receives salvation and is actually saved. Paul is saying that the opportunity to be saved comes to all when the gospel invitation is preached to them.
Second, Paul goes on to say that Jesus gave Himself with the intent to redeem us and to purify for Himself a people. Jesus did not intend to redeem all people. Elsewhere, Jesus says that He came to give His life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45)
1 Timothy 2
What do we learn from 1 Timothy 2?
Here Paul writes:
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:1-6)
Here Paul teaches that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all. Who is included in this “all”? Only the context can tell us how we are to understand the “all” or ὑπερ πάντων. πας is similar to the demonstrative pronoun where a word is supplied consistent with the context, this man or this student, etc. cf BBG 13.7.
How can we resolve this question?
For the meaning of ransom, see here. This verse could be understood two ways:
First, Paul may be teaching here what we have said above; i.e. that Jesus is a ransom for all in the sense that His atonement is sufficient to save any and all who will come to Him for salvation. There is room in Christ’s atonement for every person.
Second, Paul could be understood to be teaching that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all kinds of different people, not all people individually in the same way as John did above in 1 John 2:2.
This latter option fits better with the idea of Jesus being a ransom which, as such, does not seem to be a reference to the sufficiency of the atonement. We know as well that Paul labored hard to teach the universality of the gospel and the fact that Jesus’s atoning work was for Jews and gentiles alike. (Acts 15:9; Romans 1:16; 2:10; 3:22; 10:12 Colossians 3:11) Thus Paul is best understood here as teaching that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all kinds of different people without regard to their ethnicity or any other such characteristic. Thus the elect of God, for whom Jesus died, are not only Jewish people.
1 Timothy 4:6
How are we to understand Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 4?
Paul writes:
In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1 Timothy 4:6-10)
Here again we see the distinction between what Jesus’ atonement is, in and of itself, sufficient to do and what it actually does by the application of the Spirit of God. In the sense of the sufficiency of the atonement, Jesus is the Savior of all men. In terms of the efficiency, Jesus’ death is limited to believers.
John 3
What are we taught in John 3?
These well known words show that it was the intent of God the Father to provide an opportunity of salvation to the entire world and that He sent Jesus to do this.
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (John 3:14-17)
Who all are included in the word “world” here?
The word “world” here refers to the inhabitants of the earth. It cannot refer only to the elect since then the verse would imply that some of the elect might not believe and will perish; see here.
Verse 17 seems to teach that God intended to save the entire world through the mission of Jesus.
This is the teaching of many of the Arminian theologians, but it simply cannot be true. To affirm that God intended to save everyone and yet failed to achieve this is a serious problem with our understanding of who God is. How much more consistent with the rest of Scripture to understand these words as teaching that God the Father intended to provide an opportunity of salvation for the entire world and that He did this by sending His Son into the world to make an atonement which was sufficient to save everyone. God never did such a thing for the fallen angels. See Dabney’s paraphrase (p535) of these verses.
John 10
What does John 10 teach us about the death of Christ?
Jesus speaks here of His tender care over His sheep even to the point of laying down His life for them. (John 10:11) This is meant to be a comfort and rock of assurance for believers. If Jesus laying down His life applies as much to Herod as it does to Peter, James, & John, then there is no comfort for the sheep in His dying. It might bring some other benefit, but it does not bring salvation if it applies equally to everyone. This shows us the proper place to put the limitation in the death of Jesus.
1 John 2
What do we learn from 1 John 2 about the atonement?
This is another text where the author is rejoicing in the saving power of the death of Christ. Here the specific kind of people given this assurance are those believers who have slipped back into sinful behavior. Now John writes to these people:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
Notice the comfort which the apostle brings to those who have sinned. The wrath of God is removed by Jesus’ death, and we not need to fear God’s condemnation.
John says here that Jesus’ death is a propitiation for the sins of the entire world. How are we to understand this?
We are to understand this in the sense that Jesus’ death saves all kinds of different people from all cultures and regions of the world. The saving work of Jesus is not limited to Jewish people or to people who have proselyted to the Jewish religion. It is for Gentiles as well and for people of whatever ethnicity or social class.
Why wouldn’t you say that John is teaching that the death of Jesus applies equally to every human person?
First, if this text is talking about what the death of Jesus is in itself sufficient to perform, then there is no problem with this interpretation. This, however, cannot be the meaning of this text here. This text is providing assurance for those believers who have fallen into sin. John tells these people, who have reason to believe that God would be angry with them and bring them under judgment, that God’s wrath against them has been removed by the propitiatory work of Christ. But what possible assurance could there be in this propitiation if it did as much for the believer as the unbeliever? It’s the context which leads us to believe that “whole world” here does not mean each and every person who has ever existed.
Second, we must remember that the burning issue in the Christian church at this time was how the Gentiles were to be brought into the church. Was salvation conditioned on faith in Christ alone or were Christian converts also required to perform some of the rituals of the Jewish religion in order to be saved? Consider the people mentioned in Acts 15:1. In this verse, John clearly rejects the Judaizing theology and throws the door wide open to all people regardless of their ethnicity and regardless of their adherence to Jewish ceremonies.
Third, we know that “all people” or “every man” in Scripture rarely means every person head for head who has ever lived.
You said that the death of Jesus is sufficient to save every person who has ever lived. What do you mean by this?
This means that Jesus’ death was sufficient to remove the sins of any and all sinners who have ever lived. This guards against the idea that Jesus’ death was sufficient to save only the number of those who are actually saved. Dabney writes (p521):
Christ’s satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit.
Some people have put it this way; if God decided to save more people than He has currently chosen, Jesus would not need to return to the cross to endure more punishment for the sins of these additional people. His death is already sufficient to save everyone. In the Mosaic law, a sacrifice was only sufficient to save the person who brought it. Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself, however, can save every human person who has ever lived if God so willed it.
If the death of Jesus is sufficient to save everyone, then isn’t everyone saved?
Sufficiency in and of itself doesn’t save anyone. To use a financial allegory, if a wealthy person offers to pay the debts of 100 people and has plenty of money in his account to cover all their debts, still the only persons who will actually have their debts paid are those who come and have a check written to them for the amount of their debt. The wealthy man could have paid all their debts; but perhaps, only 25 people came forward to take advantage of this offer. Only these 25 will actually have their debts paid. We could say that it was sufficient for all 100 but efficient only for the 25. In the same way, the death of Jesus is sufficient for all but only those are saved by it who embrace it in faith.
Second, even though all people are not saved by the atoning work of Jesus, they do receive many valuable gifts as a result of it.
What sort of gifts do those receive who are not in the number of God’s chosen people?
The fact that unbelievers are not already in hell is a result of God’s undeserved favor to them. Furthermore, Jesus says that God causes His sun to shine on both His friends and His enemies. Same thing with the rain which God sends upon both the righteous and unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45) These are often called the gifts of God’s common grace. Paul talks about the riches of God’s kindness, tolerance, and patience which are meant to lead sinners to repentance. (Romans 2:4) In short, we can say that any favor of God, that comes to any person, regardless of whether they are elect or not, comes from what Jesus did in His atoning work.
2 Peter 2
What does Peter teach us about the death of Jesus?
Peter writes in his second letter:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-3)
In understanding the teaching of this text, we should first make clear that Master here refers to Jesus and bought refers to redemption from sin. Some Calvinists have tried to explain this text by denying either or both of these, but this exegesis is not correct. In what sense did Jesus purchase or redeem these false prophets? Stating the question like this shows that these false prophets were purchased in the same sense in which Jesus’ death is the reconciliation of the world. (2 Corinthians 5:19) Peter teaches us the truth that Jesus purchased these false prophets in the sense that He provided for them and offered to them an atonement which was more than sufficient to take away their guilt. That is the only sense in which it was for them. The meaning here is the same as Paul’s who taught that God’s grace is “bringing salvation to all men…” (Titus 2:11) Calvin makes ( p241) a similar comment on Romans 5:18 where he says that Paul makes grace common to all because it is proposed and declared to all but it is not actually applied to all in the sense that they are actually saved by it.
Hebrews 10
The author of Hebrews says that some people trample under foot the Son of God and regard as unclean the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified? How can they trample underfoot the Son of God if His atoning work was not for them?
The author of Hebrews writes:
Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:28-29)
Certainly, we would agree that the atoning work of Jesus is for all men in the sense that it is sufficient for their salvation and the benefits of it are sincerely offered to them. The call to take refuge in the atoning work of Jesus comes to all who are under the gospel. In this sense, both the elect and non-elect are sanctified or set apart by this gospel offer; being sanctified here does not mean having ones sins forgiven. When any person rejects this gospel call, they are said to tread under their feet the blood of Jesus; i.e. they regard the atoning work of Jesus as useless. They have no need for it; and thus, they dismiss it. Contrast this with the fallen angels who never can be said to trample under their feet the blood of Christ because that blood was never shed for them in any sense. (Jude 6)
The Arminian Doctrine
Explain the position of those who choose to limit the work of Christ instead of the number of those who are saved by it.
Grant Osborne is an Arminian theologian who defends this idea. He states the question this way:
[D]oes the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross focus on the possible salvation of all humankind or on the effective salvation of the elect? Is atonement universal or particular in its purpose? Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement, p85
His position is that Jesus came to this earth with the intention to provide an atonement for all people without exception; and in this, He was successful. This, however, does not actually save anyone. Only those are saved who exercise faith in Christ and apply to themselves what Christ has done on their behalf. Perspectives, p7 Richard Watson writes (p27):
The question before us put into its most simple form is whether our Lord Jesus Christ did so die for all men as to make salvation attainable by all men. The affirmative of this question is I think the doctrine of Scripture.
What is wrong with this?
First, it is impossible to understand how the apostle could have rejoiced in the death of Christ as the basis for his hope that he would never be condemned. If what Jesus did on the cross had the same value for Paul as it did for Caesar, then Jesus’ death does Paul no good and his hope is baseless. The death of Christ, for the Arminians, is not the deciding factor in anyone’s salvation. There own faith is the deciding factor.
Second, Paul teaches that God is the Savior of all men but especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10) How is God especially the Savior of those who believe if what He did in the atoning work of Jesus applies to every person and doesn’t actually save anyone? It is clear from this verse that Paul believes that God did something for believers that He did not do for all persons.
But is it not correct to teach that only those who believe in Jesus are going to receive the benefits of Jesus’ atoning work?
Yes, this is certainly correct, but the Arminians and Reformed understand the origin of faith differently. The Arminian system teaches that faith is something which believers add to the atonement to make it effective for them. The Reformed vigorously deny this and teach that faith is itself something which is included in the atoning work of Jesus and is given only to those whom God has chosen to save. In the Arminian system, the person’s choice is what, in the final analysis, saves them. In the Reformed understanding, the death of Jesus is what makes the difference between the lost and the saved. Grant Obsorne disagrees. He claims that J. I. Packer has misunderstood Arminian theology when Packer said, “For Arminianism, salvation rests neither on God’s election nor on Christ’s cross, but on each person’s own cooperation with grace, which is something that God cannot guarantee.” Osborne responds:
Faith does not replace the cross in this system; Arminianism has not replicated the Galatian heresy. The cross is the only basis for salvation, and faith is a surrender to the Holy Spirit, who produces salvation in the believer. I agree with Packer that “we do not become Christians without creative prevenient grace” but define this grace as the universal convicting presence of the Holy Spirit rather than as divine election. Perspectives, p83-84.
But the objection still stands. If the Holy Spirit’s work is universal, then certainly it is not the Holy Spirit that originates faith in the believer but the person’s own choice to cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s work. How else are we to understand this? If the Spirit of God does no more for God’s elect than He does for anyone else, then it is not the Spirit’s work which finally makes the difference.
Does this not imply that all God’s elect people were completely saved when Jesus cried out It is finished! and brought His atoning work to completion?
No, because a person is not saved until the Spirit of God applies to them what Jesus has already earned for them in His life, death, and resurrection.
Doesn’t Peter teach that Jesus “bought” those who will one day perish?
Yes, he does but let’s be sure to understand this correctly; see the above explanation.
If what Jesus did, He did for everyone, then what does it mean to say that Jesus saves?
It means nothing; Jesus actually saves no one. He merely makes the salvation of every person possible. The actual saving depends on the individual’s choice to believe. Consider the teaching of Hebrews:
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:23-28)
How can the certainty and assurance that the author here bases on the One who offered Himself up as the sacrifice for our sins be real if Jesus did as much for the lost as He did for His people?
It seems then that the Reformed have no disagreement with the Arminians in terms of the atonement’s universal and infinite sufficiency to save all men.
Yes, this is true. In fact, this glorious truth is the reason why the gospel call is a sincere offer of salvation. It could not be sincere if Christ’s work was only sufficient for a limited number. On the contrary, every preacher can stand and tell every sinner that no matter what they may have done in their life, their sin does not place them beyond the power of Jesus to save, and the reason for this is because Jesus atonement is of infinite sufficiency. Suppose that a man offered to pay the debts of 100 people, but this man only has enough money in his account to pay the debts of eighty of these people. His offer would not be sincere but a lie. Many Arminians misunderstand the Reformed position on this point. Edwards’ acknowledges this:
Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, He certainly knew, when He died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for His death. And therefore, it was impossible that He should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] He died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time He knew they would not be happy. Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that He did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when they say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that He died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction.
Which Arminians misunderstand the Reformed position on this point?
Consider Summers’ sixteen proofs (p234), which he says are conclusive for the truth of universal atonement. His tenth is this:
It is asked, “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” The question is impertinent in the case of the reprobate, for whom no salvation is provided. (Hebrews 2:3)
The Reformed answer this by asserting that salvation is provided for the reprobate in the sense that Jesus’ death is sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world. Therefore, it is not correct to say that no salvation is provided for the reprobate. Boettner (last paragraph here):
There is, then, a sense in which Christ died for all men, and we do not reply to the Arminian tenet with an unqualified negative. But what we do maintain is that His death had special reference to the elect, that with the accompanying influences of the Holy Spirit which are secured by it, it is effectual for their salvation, and that the effects which are produced in others are only incidental to this one great purpose.
Previously, you said that the blessings of common grace come to the wicked as a result of the death of Christ. What are these blessings?
Dabney lists the following (p528):
- A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race who does not die at his birth (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well being, and the bounties of life.
- A manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non-elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipients contumacy which disappoints it.
- A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.
- A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures. Had there been no mediation of Christ, we have not a particle of reason to suppose that the doom of our sinning race would have been delayed one hour longer than that of the fallen angels.
Why do you teach that these common grace blessings come to the wicked as a result of the death of Christ?
This is not a conclusion based on any one text. It is a theological conclusion based on the fact that every grace and favor that comes to any person can only come as a result of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. McCune writes:
There is no one [Bible] verse that anchors common grace in the atonement of Christ. However, theologically this is necessarily so. Any mitigation of the effects of sin is due ultimately to the cross work of Christ. There is no other basis on which God could deal with sin in grace or mercy. Common grace is grace—non-redemptive grace—and is a mitigation of the full effects of sin. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2.297
What is the question here?
The question pertains to the source of common grace blessings. Do they come to the wicked as a result of Christ’s death or simply as a function of God’s providence over all creation? Berkhof states (see §C. here) the question:
…how it is to be explained that a holy and just God extends grace to, and bestows favors upon, sinners who have forfeited everything, even when they have no share in the righteousness of Christ and prove finally impenitent. The question is exactly, How can God continue to bestow those blessings of creation on men who are under the sentence of death and condemnation? As far as the elect are concerned this question is answered by the cross of Christ, but how about the reprobate?
To say that common grace blessings come from God’s providence doesn’t answer the question.
True, and this has caused some confusion on this point. Everyone agrees that common grace blessings come to the wicked as a result of God’s providence. The question still remains as to whether these gifts are motivated by God’s kindness or hatred. If they are motivated by God’s kindness, then they must flow from the death of Christ since it is inconceivable that any blessing could come to someone apart from the death of Jesus. Turretin writes on this point:
We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of many blessings even to reprobates. For it is due to the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to every creature, that the gross idolatry of the heathen has been abolished from many parts of the world, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by God’s word and that some often obtain many and excellent (though not saving) gifts of the Holy Spirit. All these unquestionably flow from the death of Christ, since no place would have been given for them in the church unless Christ had died. Rather the question is whether the suretyship and satisfaction of Christ were (by the counsel of God and the will of Christ himself) intended for each and every one (as they hold); or for the elect only (as we assert). Institutes 2.459
Grudem disagrees and says that these blessings come only indirectly from the death of Christ:
In distinction from common grace, the grace of God that brings people to salvation is often called “saving grace.” Of course, when we talk about “common grace” and “saving grace” we are not implying that there are two different kinds of grace in God himself, but only that God’s grace manifests itself in the world in two different ways. Common grace is different from saving grace in its results (it does not bring about salvation), in its recipients (it is given to believers and unbelievers alike), and in its source (it does not directly flow from Christ’s atoning work, since Christ’s death did not earn any measure of forgiveness for unbelievers, and therefore did not merit the blessings of common grace for them either). However, on this last point it should be said that common grace does flow indirectly from Christ’s redemptive work, because the fact that God did not judge the world at once when sin entered it was primarily or perhaps exclusively due to the fact that he planned eventually to save some sinners through the death of his Son. Systematic Theology p658
Berkhof also uses the word indirectly (see §C. here):
Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share. In every covenant transaction recorded in Scripture it appears that the covenant of grace carries with it not only spiritual but also material blessings, and those material blessings are generally of such a kind that they are naturally shared also by unbelievers. Says Cunningham (p333): “Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other.” And it is but natural that this should be so. If Christ was to save an elect race, gradually called out of the world of humanity in the course of centuries, it became necessary for God to exercise forbearance, to check the course of evil, to promote the development of the natural powers of man, to keep alive within the hearts of men a desire for civil righteousness, for external morality and good order in society, and to shower untold blessings upon mankind in general. Dr. Hodge expresses (p358) it thus: “It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or for worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected.” He quotes Dr. Candlish to the effect that “the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning.” These general blessings of mankind, indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ, were not only foreseen by God, but designed by Him as blessings for all concerned. It is perfectly true, of course, that the design of God in the work of Christ pertained primarily and directly, not to the temporal well-being of men in general, but to the redemption of the elect; but secondarily and indirectly it also included the natural blessings bestowed on mankind indiscriminately. All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ.
John Murray says that if blessings do indeed come to the non-elect then they were intended to so.
In continuing the analysis of this doctrine, it is necessary to be clear what the question is not. The question is not whether many benefits short of justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. “He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:8-9). Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they thus flow from the death of Christ they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ. The denial of universal atonement does not carry with it the denial of any such relation that the benefits enjoyed by all men may sustain to Christ’s death and finished work. Redemption Accomplished and Applied p59-60
What is the question which the Arminian must answer?
The continental divide between the Arminian and Reformed understanding is this question: Did the death of Jesus have equal reference to all men? The word “equal” being the key word. Richard Watson takes (p32) the position that Jesus died with the same intent for all men:
This is at least prima facie strongly in favor of those who hold that in the same sense and with the same design Jesus Christ tasted death for every man.