Introduction
What is atonement?
Atonement is the removal of guilt which happens by way of punishment. When the guilty undergo their punishment, we say that their sin is atoned for or expiated; they are no longer guilty. As a result of this atonement, the law is satisfied, and no further punishment is required. For example, a man who steals a woman’s purse might be sentenced to five year in prison 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.
What is atonement in the Bible?
In the Bible, atonement is almost always referring to the removal of the guilt 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)
Is there no other way to have one’s sins atoned for then by death? What hope is there for lost mankind?
Sin can only be atoned for by death, either our own death or that of a substitute. 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 power of Jesus’ atonement.
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 and resurrection 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 following verses.
Romans 8
What does Romans 8 teach us about the atonement of Christ?
Consider Paul’s three questions which he gives in Romans 8.
The first question is will God fail?
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
If God was at such a cost as to give over His only begotten Son to death, is it conceivable that His larger plan would fail? The second question is who is the judge?
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; (Romans 8:33)
If the Creator of heaven and earth is the Judge, then His verdict is right and no one dare contradict it. The last question is what is the death of Christ?
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. (Romans 8:34)
The death of Jesus was a complete expiation of all our guilt. No charges can be brought against us because all our sin has been atoned for. The key point here is this last question; note the basis or ground of Paul’s assurance. The people of God cannot be condemned because Christ died for them.
How does this show us that we must place the limitation on the extent of the atonement and not on the atonement itself?
Because Paul’s very argument depends on Christ’s atonement being a full and complete work of salvation. The idea is clear that if you are one for whom Christ died, then you will not be condemned. Thus, we conclude that the extent of the atonement is limited, not the saving power of Christ’s death.
Does Jesus’ death have nothing to do with those who are not of the number of God’s chosen people?
No, Jesus’ death certainly has a reference to everyone, but the Bible teaches us that the death of Christ is not for everyone in the same sense. Yes, there are texts which teach that the death of Christ opens a possibility of salvation for every human person and that a free offer of salvation is extended to everyone. These texts will be considered below. In this sense, Christ died for everyone. All the same, it is clear that the saving power of Christ’s death does not extend to every person otherwise every person would be entitled to the assurance given in Romans 8:34. It is in this sense, that we speak of a limited or definite atonement. The death of Christ has a unique reference to God’s elect people. Christ died for Peter in a way that He did not die for Judas.
1 John 2
Where else do we find the apostles leaning on the death of Christ for assurance of salvation?
We see this in John’s first letter. Note that John is speaking to those believers who have slipped back into sinful behavior:
This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5-10)
John continues writing to these saints whose consciences were alarmed by the teaching that God is perfect and pure light, and no darkness is in Him.
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 provided we confess and repent of these sins.
Why is this important for our understanding of the extent of the atonement?
Because here we have another example of how the apostles based their assurance on the saving power of Jesus’ atoning death. The death of Christ has secured for every repentant soul a full forgiveness and cleansing from all sin. Just as with Paul in Romans 8, so John’s argument here requires that the death of Jesus be really and truly saving even while limited in the number of those it saves.
How then can John say that Jesus’ death is a propitiation for the sins of the entire world?
We are to understand this in the sense that the blessing of Jesus’ death is not limited to the Jewish people. It saves all kinds of different people from all cultures and regions of the world. It does not mean that Jesus died for each and every person who has ever lived. Remember, the context of the John’s ministry. Paul was specifically called by God to preach to the gentiles. (Acts 9:15) Then God used Peter to open the door of His kingdom to gentiles. He taught Peter that he was not to call unclean (i.e. gentiles) what God had cleansed. (Acts 10:15, 34-35) In the house of Cornelius, Peter and his company were shocked to see that God baptized gentiles with the Holy Spirit as well as Jews. (Acts 10:45) Then, Peter was at considerable pains to explain to the Jewish Christians that God had opened the door of the gospel to people of all ethnicities. (Acts 11:1-3) For the rest of the apostolic age, this was the defining issue. What to do with gentile believers who knew nothing of Jewish customs and ritual was the question which agitated the church and caused Paul so much grief and trouble. It was the focus of the Jerusalem council. The apostles were constantly laboring to show that the saving grace of God was not limited to the Jewish people or to people who had proselyted to the Jewish religion. The gospel door was open to every person whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. (Galatians 3:28) . This explains John’s choice of language here. The death of Christ is for any person of any nationality who owns their sin and puts their trust in Jesus; see the paraphrase here.
Are there other places in John’s writing which can help us understand this verse?
Yes, the same thought is in Revelation:
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:9-10)
This vast multitude of all different kinds of people are those who have come out of the great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 7:14)
Why can’t Christians say that the death of Jesus applies equally to every human person?
Because then their is no assurance in the death of Christ that we will never be condemned. Yet, both the Romans text and this one teach us to hang all our hope of salvation on Jesus’ death. If the death of Christ does as much for Peter as it does for Judas, then what comfort is in it for Peter? If Christ died for people who will eventually go to hell, then what difference does it make that Christ died for me?
Hebrews 7
What is taught in this chapter?
Here again we see the author resting his hopes for salvation on the work of the Great High Priest:
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)
Here the author draws near to to God through Jesus. His hope is that he will be saved because of what Christ has done as his High Priest. First, the author points to Christ’s intercession. (John 17:9) Second, to Christ’s sacrifice of Himself for our sin. The key thing to note here is that the author’s certainty and assurance of being saved is based on what Christ has done. Because Christ intercedes for us, we can know with certainty that we will be saved. Because Christ has died for us, we can know with certainty that we will be saved.
Why is this important?
It teaches us that the death of Christ does not apply to every person equally; otherwise, the apostles would not have based their assurance on it.
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. Now 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 where we should place the limitation in respect to the death of Jesus.
You said that the death of Christ does not apply to everyone equally. Where does the Bible speak to that issue?
Consider Paul’s words to Timothy.
1 Timothy 4:6
What does Paul teach Timothy about the atonement?
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)
Notice the distinction made here between what God does for all men and what He does for believers.
Why is this important?
Because the crux of the issue is whether Jesus died for all equally or whether His death has a special significance for God’s chosen people. In this text, Paul clearly teaches that God did something for believers which He did not do for all men.
Are there other texts which show a distinction between what Jesus did for all and what He does for believers?
Yes, consider what Paul writes to the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 5
What does Paul teach us here?
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 about the love which Christ has to sinners and how this love drives him forward in preaching the gospel to any who will hear. Paul’s reasoning is this. If Jesus died for all people, which is assumed to be true (that one died for all), then we know that all people must have first died in Adam (therefore all died). Now if Christ died for all, then Paul will show the same love for the fallen sons of Adam which Jesus showed in giving His life for all. This is what drives Paul to preach the gospel to every person under the sun.
Where do we see a distinction between what Jesus does for all and what He does for His people?
Notice the very last part of the above quote: 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. This is not as clear as the previous text; but still, we see Jesus dying for all persons but also dying in a special sense for those who no longer live for themselves.
So clearly some of the benefits of Jesus’ death are understood by Paul to be as wide as the effects of Adam’s breach of the covenant of works.
Yes.
And yet, Jesus died in a special sense for those learn to deny themselves and to follow Him.
Yes, precisely.
What exactly does God do for believers which He does not do for all?
Paul does not state that here, but he does in other verses. Consider what he says later in this same chapter:
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 a reconciliation.
What is the significance of this metaphor?
By using the metaphor of reconciliation, Paul teaches us to see two sides to the work of Christ. We see the same thing in situations where people are reconciled. If two people are angry with each other, we understand that for full reconciliation to take place, both sides have to bury the hatchet. If only one person lays aside his grudge, full reconciliation has not been realized.
What are these two sides as it pertains to the death of Christ?
There is the justice and wrath of God against sin. (John 3:36) Then, there is also the hostility and enmity on man’s part towards God. (Romans 8:7) For reconciliation to happen, both sides have to be reconciled to the other. Now, this is what Jesus’ death does:
- It takes away the wrath of God. The term propitiation is used to refer to this.
- It brings the sinner to repent of his sin, to lay aside his hostility against God, and to trust and love God with all his heart.
Where do we see this in this text?
We see:
- the Godward side of reconciliation in these words God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.
- the manward side in the call that goes out from the ambassadors, we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Clearly, the work God did in reconciling sinners to Himself does not complete the process of reconciliation otherwise there would be no need for the ambassadors to go forth and call people to be reconciled to God. For full reconciliation to happen, sinners also have to lay aside their enmity against God. This happens when they hear the appeal from the ambassadors, respond to it, and put their trust in Jesus. The same teaching is found in Romans 5:6-11.
So if God has reconciled the world to Himself, then why are any of this world’s people in danger of being lost?
This is not an easy question to answer. The Bible itself does not teach us exactly how these two truths are consistent with each other.
- On the one hand, God is angry with the wicked and will throw them finally into eternal punishment. (John 3:36; Romans 1-3)
- On the other hand, this passage teaches us that God is reconciled to the human race and has no wrath against them.
Some have resolved this by using the language of legal obstacles.
Explain this.
This is one way to resolve the tension between the two truths stated above; see the explanation of Romans 3 below.
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 their trespasses against them, doesn’t that 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?
First, the expression not counting one’s trespasses against them is synonymous with having one’s sins forgiven. This can be put in contrast with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians, where he explains that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then they are still in their sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)
Second, God has reconciled the world to Himself. In other words, because of the death of Christ, God can now forgive the sins of any person consistent with His perfect justice. (Romans 3:26) This part of the reconciling work is completed.
Finally, when any person hears the appeal from the ambassadors, embraces this reconciling work, puts their trust in Jesus, then they are saved and their trespasses are not counted against them. They are no longer in their sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17) This is how Paul is to be understood here.
Are there other verses where this language of legal obstacles is useful?
Yes, consider Paul’s comments to the Roman Christians.
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 is another place where the Bible teaches us that all legal obstacles have been removed and that the full justification of any sinner is now a possibility. This is something which the death of Jesus has accomplished.
Explain this.
In the previous verse (2 Corinthians 5), Paul taught us that God reconciling the world to Himself. We understand this to mean that He removed the legal obstacles which stood in the way of a sinner being saved. In this verse, Paul teaches that this legal obstacle was removed through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.
What is the legal obstacle that stands in the way of God forgiving the sin of any person?
The legal obstacle is God’s justice. Apart from the death of Christ, God cannot forgive sins because His justice requires satisfaction and therefore the death of the sinner. Jesus’ death, however, has satisfied the justice of God. Thus, God’s justice no longer stands in the way of God forgiving the sins of any sinner He chooses. In the language of Paul, God can now be both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. (Romans 3:26) Compare this to the status of the fallen angels. They are kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day (Jude 6) because there is no atonement for them; and therefore, there is no possibility of salvation for them. The most vile sinner on earth, however, is in a very different position. He also is under God’s wrath but with this difference. He has in his hand a standing offer of a full and free salvation (Hebrews 4:1-2) which, should he choose to accept it, would bring Him into a saving union with Jesus Christ and enact a full reconciliation with God. This offer of salvation is the “ministry of reconciliation” which Paul preaches. (2 Corinthians 5:18)
Which theologians use this language?
Hodge (p357):
Putting these two things together, therefore, the sufficiency for all and the exact adaptation to each, it is plain as the sun in the heavens that the death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God’s saving any man he pleases. In this sense, if you please, Christ did make the salvation of all men indifferently possible, a parte Dei. He can apply it to any whomsoever He will; but since His will never changes, there can be no distinction between His present will and His eternal design.
Shedd (p458):
Christ stipulates to suffer, provided actual not merely possible salvation shall be the result. He volunteers to die not only for the purpose of removing legal obstacles to salvation, but also with the view of actually delivering an immense multitude of particular persons from condemnation. Who these persons are is determined by a previous election.
Boyce (p338):
Nor is there of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rests since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another ‘if God so wills it.’ ”
Pink (on v20-21):
The gracious means by which He designed to effect the reconciliation originated in His own love, yet the atonement of Christ was the righteous instrument of removing the breach between us. The term is entirely a forensic one, contemplating God in His office as Judge. It concerns our relationship to Him not as our Creator, or as our Father, but as our King. The reconciliation which Christ has effected wrought no change in God Himself, but it has in the administration of His government: His law now regards with approbation those against whom it was formerly hostile. Reconciliation means that transgressors have been restored to the judicial favor of God through Christ’s having closed the breach which sin had made. It was the amazing love of God which gave Christ to die for us, and His atonement was in order to the removing of those legal obstacles which our sins had interposed against God’s love flowing out to us in a way consistent with the honor of His justice.
Vos (p43):
The two passages discussed not merely prove the objective character of the reconciliation, they also determine its essence. It consisted in the removal of objective legal obstacles, which notwithstanding God’s love for sinners yet compelled Him to treat them on the basis of enmity.
Titus 2
What can we learn about Christ’s death from Titus 2?
Paul writes:
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 a statement of intent, specifically what Jesus intended in giving Himself for us.
What part of this verse gives us Jesus’ intent?
These words, …to redeem (ἵνα λυτρώσηται) us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. This means that it was not Jesus’ intent to redeem all people. His intent was to purify a people for Himself and a people for His own possession. (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45)
What else is expressed in these verses?
Paul teaches us that God has shown grace and favor to all people by bringing them salvation. Now, “all men” here does not mean every person who has ever lived since this it is clear that a great part of mankind have never heard the gospel. It refers to all the different kinds of people who heard the apostles preaching the gospel. Furthermore, bringing salvation to all men does mean that everyone actually receives salvation and is actually saved. Paul is saying that the offer of salvation and the opportunity to be saved comes to all people no matter who they are or what they may have done in their life. Everyone can be saved be they Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. (Galatians 3:28)
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 God desires all men to be saved and that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all.
How can we resolve this question?
This verse could be understood two ways:
First, Paul may be teaching here 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 teaching that Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all different kinds of people. Salvation is not limited to the Jewish people. The same message that John gave 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 their previous lifestyle. Thus the elect of God, for whom Jesus died, are not only Jewish people.
What is meant by Jesus being a ransom?
See here.
Explain this distinction between the atonement’s sufficiency and its efficacy.
This helpful distinction was first given by Peter Lombard:
|
1. De traditione Christi, quae dicitur facta a Patre, a Filio, a Iuda et a Iudaeis. Christus ergo est sacerdos idemque hostia et pretium nostrae reconciliationis, qui se in ara crucis non diabolo, sed Deo Trinitati obtulit, pro omnibus quantum ad pretii sufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficaciam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit. |
Chapter 5 (66)
1. Concerning the betrayal of Christ, which is said to have been done by the Father, by the Son, by Judas, and by the Jews. Christ, therefore, is the priest and also the victim and the price of our reconciliation, who offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to God the Trinity, for all in terms of the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect in terms of efficacy, because he effected salvation only for the predestined. |
This distinction was also used by the Synod of Dordt as can be seen by a comparison of these two articles:
This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. (Head 2; article 3)
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all His chosen ones, in order that He might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. (Head 2; article 8)
What does this distinction mean?
It means that in itself, the work of Christ is sufficient to save any sinner and as many sinners as God chooses to save. If God would have chosen to save the entire world, Jesus’ death was sufficient for this. We must never think that the death of Jesus was sufficient for only so many sinners and that if more were to be saved, Jesus would have to suffer more. Owen writes (p147):
Neither may we be charged as straiteners of the merit of Christ; for we advance the true value and worth thereof (as hereafter will appear) far beyond all the Arminians ascribe unto it. We confess that “blood of God,” Acts 20:28, of the “Lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19, was so exceedingly precious, of that infinite worth and value, that it might have saved a thousand believing worlds, John 3:16; Romans 3:22. His death was of sufficient dignity to have been made a ransom for all the sins of every one in the world. And on this internal sufficiency of his death and passion is grounded the universality of evangelical promises; which have no such restriction in their own nature as that they should not be made to all and every one, though the promulgation and knowledge of them are tied only to the good pleasure of God’s special providence, Matthew 16:17; as also that economy and dispensation of the new covenant whereby, the partition-wall being broken down, there remains no more difference between Jew and Gentile, the utmost borders of the earth being given in for Christ’s inheritance. So that, in some sense, Christ may be said to die for “all,” and “the whole world;”—first, Inasmuch as the worth and value of his death was very sufficient to have been made a price for all their sins; secondly, Inasmuch as this word “all” is taken for some of all sorts (not for every one of every sort), as it is frequently used in the holy Scripture: so Christ being lifted up, “drew all unto him,” John 12:32; that is, believers out of all sorts of men. The apostles cured all diseases, or some of all sorts: they did not cure every particular disease, but there was no kind of disease that was exempted from their power of healing. So that where it is said that Christ “died for all,” it is meant either,—first, All the faithful; or, secondly, Some of all sorts; thirdly, Not only Jews, but Gentiles.
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 cannot be true. To affirm that God intended to save everyone and yet failed to do so would create 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.
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, then, did Jesus purchase or redeem these false prophets?
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 a real atonement which was sufficient to take away their guilt. The legal obstacles which stood in the way of their salvation had been removed. 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)
Here the idea is that the Jewish believers who were tempted to return to Judaism were trampling under their feet the blood of the covenant by turning their back on the call of God to stay true to Christ. In this sense, these “Christians” were sanctified by the blood of the covenant when they heard the call and offer of the gospel. In this sense, both 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 trample under their feet the blood of Christ because that blood was never shed for them in any sense. (Jude 6)
The Arminian Doctrine
You started this by explaining that every Christian limits the work of Christ in some way. Either we limit its extent or we limit its saving power. Explain the position of those who choose the latter option.
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.
Ralston states (p242) the question this way:
The point referred to is embraced in the following question:—Does the atonement of Christ so extend to all men as to make salvation possible for them?
What is wrong with this?
First, these theologians have chosen to limit the saving power of the atonement instead of its extent. This contradicts the teaching of Romans 8 and 1 John 2 above. It is impossible to understand how the apostles could have rejoiced in the death of Christ as the basis for their hope that they will not be condemned, if what Jesus did on the cross has the same value for everyone. If this understanding of Jesus’ atoning work is true, then the death of Christ is not the deciding factor in anyone’s salvation. There own faith is the deciding factor.
Second, this teaching contradicts the Bible’s teaching that God is the Savior of all men and especially of those who believe. (see 1 Timothy 4 above) How is God especially the Savior of those who believe if Jesus’ death applies to every person equally? 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 faith differently.
The Arminians teach that faith is something which believers add to the atonement to make it effective for them. Jesus’ death in and of itself does not save anyone. Reformed teachers have often compared this to a bridge that only goes part way across the valley. The bridge is only effective for those who will take that final leap and thus cross safely. At the end of the day, the person’s choice to believe in Jesus is what saves him.
The Reformed 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. Thus, it is the death of Jesus which makes the difference between the lost and the saved.
How do the Arminians respond to this?
Grant Obsorne disagrees. He claims that J. I. Packer 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 Osbourne has not resolved the objection. If any of the saving acts of God apply universally and not everyone is saved, then we are forced to the conclusion that, in the final analysis, it is not God’s saving act which made the difference. If the death of Christ applies equally to every person, then it does not make the difference. If the Holy Spirit’s work is universal as Osbourne writes, then it cannot be the Holy Spirit who brings a believer to faith. It is the person’s own choice to cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s work. What other possible way is there to understand this?
What good is faith then? Is it even necessary? Your view implies that all God’s people were saved the minute 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. See above where Paul uses the metaphor of reconciliation to explain the work of Christ.
Doesn’t Peter teach that Jesus “bought” those who will one day perish?
Yes, see the explanation given above for 1 Peter.
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.
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 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 their sins as well as anyone’s. 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, 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.