Matthew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Of all the Five Points of Calvinism, none cause quite as much upset as Limited Atonement. It’s not the most helpfully named thing, which is aimed at saying the scope of the atonement is limited to the elect rather than all people in general, but it sounds like its saying its effects are limited which is why some prefer Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. The doctrine is ultimately driving at the idea that Jesus died for particular people, as opposed to all people in general (particular redemption), and that the people Jesus intends to save are actually saved by his death on the cross (definite atonement) rather than just potentially saved by his death and then only actually saved upon their belief.
The issue concerning Limited Atonement is brought into sharp focus when we ask two simple questions: (1) did Jesus’ death actually pay for anybody’s sin; and, (2) did Jesus death actually save anyone? There are only three possible answers to these questions:
Jesus’ death paid for everybody’s sin and therefore saves everyone
Jesus’ death paid for nobody’s sin and therefore saves no one
Jesus’ death paid for particular people’s sin and therefore saves those particular people
Those who affirm option one fall for the heterodox doctrine of universalism. If Jesus has paid for everybody’s sin, God has nothing to hold against anybody; there is no further price to be paid and there is no condemnation for anybody. History’s greatest wrong ones are all heading straight for Heaven on such a view. But the fact is, Jesus did not speak about the ‘outer darkness’ on the basis that nobody is going there. Matthew 8:11-12 fairly clearly rules out any possibility that everyone is saved and there are many other bible passages that make the matter clear. Jesus death did not pay for everybody’s sin and evidently all are not saved.
Option 2 is not a great deal better. If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. Unless we want to fall back onto option one and argue everybody is saved, ‘whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out. John’s usual use of ‘world’ tends to mean something like ‘all kinds of people’, Jews and every kind of Gentile. Galatian 3:13 tells us Jesus’ death has categorically lifted the curse for some. There is no biblical ground for arguing that Jesus’ death has failed to pay for anyone’s sin.
This leaves us with option 3. Jesus’ death has paid for particular people’s sin and is applied only to those particular people. There are no other options. Either Jesus death has paid for everyone – in which case there is no more sin anywhere to be paid for and all are saved – he has paid for nobody’s sin in which case his atonement has failed to achieve anything at all and everyone, everywhere remains condemned, or else he has only died for particular people and paid for their particular sin. There simply are no other options and, given universalism is evidently unbiblical and a counsel of despair is similarly unbiblical, we are left with only one possibility: Jesus only died for some.
But someone will no doubt argue that Jesus died for all, but his death is only applied to those who believe. The argument is usually framed as Jesus having atoned for sin, he has paid the price on their behalf, but they have rejected his gift. Their sin has been paid for on the cross and Jesus offers them the benefits of his atonement, but if they do not take it then they have rejected his free gift of grace. The problem with this is highlighted by John Owen:
Why are not all free from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why would they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins? Let them choose which part they will.
In other words, if Jesus paid for all the sin of all men that must include their sin of unbelief. If he has died for all and paid for the sin of all in toto then all are necessarily saved. There is no sin counted against them anymore. On the other hand, If Jesus died for all, but did not die for their unbelief, given all of us are unbelievers by nature, Jesus hasn’t paid for all the sin of anybody. If unbelief is excluded, nobody’s unbelief is covered by Christ’s death, meaning his atonement has failed and all are condemned. If we want to say Jesus died for all people everywhere we have universalism; if we say he died for all except for unbelief, he hasn’t effectively paid for all sin for anybody. We also have to contend with there being no biblical grounds to argue Jesus saves all nor that he died for some sins of all and all sins for some.
There is only one other position open to us: Jesus died, and only ever intended to die, for the sin of the elect. He went to the cross knowing for whom he died, paying for the sins of those he was dying for in toto, and definitively ensuring their salvation – and only their salvation – at that point. In the end, Jesus either died for everybody, died for nobody, or he actually died for a particular people whom he was willing, able and then did effectively save. The Bible really only points in one direction on this question too. Jesus died effectively for the elect and the elect alone.
Comments