A Defense of Limited Atonement

Out of the five points of Calvinism, perhaps the most unnerving and unwanted doctrine is that of limited atonement. Quite simply, the doctrine of limited atonement teaches us that, although Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of the world, it was not intended or effected to do so; rather, it was only intended and effected for the justification of God's elect. Charles Spurgeon, in his sermon entitled "Particular Redemption," eloquently stated:

"We hold-we are not afraid to say that we believe-that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved..." (Emphasis added)

Modern evangelicals do not find favor with this doctrine because of its seemingly harsh reality. Even Christians who accept the other four points of Calvinism (i.e. 4-point Calvinists) have significant qualms about the doctrine of limited atonement. They're reasoning is as follows: if Christ only died for the sins of those who God elected, then there is only a limited number of people who could be saved, and therefore by extension, God damns the rest to Hell without even giving them the slightest chance of salvation.

Admittedly, without a proper understanding of Scripture and the Gospel, this sounds harsh on our ears. In fact, in my experience, I have never encountered a response to limited atonement that does not in some way stem from emotional discomfort ("I cannot believe in a God that acts like that!"). This is because the modern evangelical church now interprets doctrine by the standard of human emotions rather than Scriptural truth and logical consistency. Postmodernism has ravaged not only the supposed "secular" realms of society, but also the doctrines within Christianity. Therefore, most modern evangelicals either consciously or subconsciously believe that if the doctrine doesn't make us feel good (i.e. appeal to our "emotional well-being" or "self-esteem"), then it cannot be true. Nothing could be more preposterous.

In saying this, I do not admit that the doctrine of limited atonement is a harsh doctrine. As I admitted earlier, it sounds harsh, but that does not mean it is. In fact, it is the only doctrine regarding atonement that fully demonstrates the love and grace of God in accordance with what the Scriptures teach. We simply have to be initially willing to think harder than we feel in order to realize this. Once we have rigorously disciplined our thoughts according to Scripture, then we have the capacity to truly experience the emotions that overwhelm our entire being when we bask in the truth of God.

And thus, we come to the argument for the doctrine of limited atonement.

John Owen's Argument

The puritanical thinker, John Owen, once asked the question: "For who did Christ die?" He answered that there could only be three possibilities:

1) Christ died for all the sins of all men
2) Christ died for all the sins of some men
3) Christ died for some of the sins of all men

Regarding the last two possibilities, he wrote: "That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth." (Emphasis added)

The third possibility was easy to strike down. No Christian believes that Christ died only for some sins of all men because it is obvious that no one can be saved under such a belief. The second possibility is the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement which says that Christ's death covered for all of the sins of the elect. As stated in the introductory paragraph, this does not deny the sufficiency of Christ's death to cover for the sins of every human being, but reminds us that Christ's death was only effective for the redemption of the elect.

But what of the first alternative? This is the position of Arminianism which tells us that Christ died for all the sins of all men. Arminians argue that the reason why some still go to Hell is because they choose not to believe. Thus God does not damn them to Hell, rather, their own choice to reject God does so. Yet, Owen masterfully responds to this by pointing out that, "I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

In other words, the Arminian position is itself internally contradictory. Owen points out that the choice to reject Christ is, in and of itself, a sin. If Christ did indeed die for all the sins of all men, he must therefore have died for the sin of unbelief and it logically follows that all men go to Heaven. This is completely unbiblical and thus not an acceptable defense for the Arminian. So there's another route they can take: if Christ's death does not cover for the sin of unbelief, then He did not die for all sins and we are left with the completely unbiblical doctrine of the third possibility, that Christ died for some of the sins of all men. Thus, either the premises of Arminianism logically lead to the heresy of universalism or to a teaching that the death of Christ is not powerful to save even one soul from Hell.

On this point, Dr. Greg Bahnsen argued that "It should also be noted that the doctrine of particular redemption is necessary to the orthodox view of Christ's substitutionary atonement; the only alternatives to it are universal salvation or salvation by works (both are unbiblical)."

And thus, we find ourselves left with the argument that Christ died for all the sins of some men, namely, his elect.

Scriptural Support for the Doctrine of Limited Atonement

Ultimately, despite the most brilliant logical analysis by Owen and other reformed theologians, the doctrine of limited atonement must ultimately derive its truth value from Scripture. And indeed we find it to be scripturally grounded.

Matthew 1:21 tells us that, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Note that this passage tells us that Christ came to save his people from their sins, not everyone.

Furthermore, in John 6:37-39, Jesus makes it clear that "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." If we pay attention to this passage, we clearly see that Christ came to accomplish the will of the Father. But what was the will of the Father? To give unto Christ those who He would give to him and Christ would not cast them out. In other words, Christ came to earth specifically with His elect in mind.

And in John 10:14-15, Christ says that "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." Again, we see that Christ lays down his life specifically for "the sheep" that we see in verse 14 are those that know him ("am known of mine.")

We also see in Isaiah 53:11-12 that "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." In this passage, we see that the suffering servant (Christ) would justify "many," not all. Therefore, we see, even from the Old Testament foretelling of Christ's redemptive power a clear understanding that it would be limited in its actual effect.

I do not deny that there are passages that, at first glance, seem to say that Christ died for the sins of the entire world (see 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, and John 1:29). However there are two immediate responses to these passages. Namely:

1) As previously stated, the doctrine of limited atonement does not deny the power of Christ's sacrifice to save everyone. It simply reminds us that there are other passages that clarify that God limited the application of that power according to his divine purpose. Thus, we can understand at least some (if not all) of these passages as talking about the power of Christ's sacrifice as opposed to its application.

2) We have to be careful with these passages in the use of the word, "world" or "all." There are many times where the English translation of "world" does not mean "every single person in the world" in the New Testament. Or are we to interpret Luke 2:1 as saying that Caesar Augustus wanted a census that included all of the Africians, American Indians, and peoples of the Orient? Or are we to interpret John 12:19 as saying that every single human being in the world followed Jesus into Jerusalem singing "Hosanna!" Obviously not. Thus, using passages that use all-encompassing vocabulary as arguments for unlimited atonement do not result in good arguments, especially since they leave the other passages for limited atonement completely without a reasonable explanation.

Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election

By now, I hope my readers have realized that there is an absolute and unbreakable link between the doctrine of limited atonement and unconditional election. One cannot accept one without the other, for both Scriptural and logical reasons. Unconditional election is the doctrine regarding God's purpose to choose those He will save through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. Limited Atonement is the application of Christ's propitiation and sacrifice of God's purpose for the elect. To separate the two is to create a dangerous disharmony between the purpose and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the Trinity.

On this point, Dr. Greg Bahnsen held nothing back when he said that, "If it be said that before creation the Father singled out in election those whom He destined to save and that the Spirit's activity of bringing men to repentance and faith is operative (to that extent) only in the lives of God's elect and yet that Christ offered up His life for the purpose of saving every single individual, then the unity of the Trinity has been forsaken. For in such a case Christ clearly sets out to accomplish what God the Father and Spirit do not intend to do; Christ here would be out of harmony with the will and purpose of the other two persons of the Trinity. Hence anyone who expounds 'four-point Calvinism' has inadvertently destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity (by dissolving its unity) and is logically committed to a polytheistic position."

Ultimately, what helps us reconcile the unity within the Trinity? Remember, in John 6, Christ said that He came to do the will of the Father, and if that will was to save the elect, then we can logically conclude based off of Scriptural authority that Christ did indeed only come to die for the elect. Thus, the reformed doctrine of limited atonement as an essential link to unconditional election keeps a fundamental unity between the purpose and fulfillment of the different persons within the Trinity. And we continue to see even further support for the doctrine of limited atonement based on its relation to the rest of Christian theology.

Conclusion

As a disclaimer, the above arguments are not meant to show that a non-Calvinist is a non-believer. Their theology is either badly developed or unfortunately neglected, but that does not mean that they are not saved. Those who believe in Arminianism can still be Christians. Only an unbiblical position of hyper-Calvinism would contend that Arminians are definitely unbelievers.

However, the logic of Arminian theology does have a dangerous and slippery slope that we must be careful to avoid. There is no reconciling the contradictory doctrines of Arminianism and Calvinism with any sort of rational coherence so as to arrive at some type of "middle ground." If we are to proceed with confidence in regard to some of the core doctrines of Christianity, namely, the Trinity, the Gospel, salvation, justification, and redemption, we must realize that the Scripturally warranted arguments for limited atonement allow us to do so while the Arminian position leaves us without a proper understanding of these doctrines. To attempt to say that "both" are valid and we just can't know might be an easy answer, but it isn't the correct answer once we take the time to evaluate the conflicting claims between the two in light of the law of non-contradiction.

And thus, we see that although it is one of the most rejected doctrines of Calvinism, it turns out that limited atonement is absolutely vital to staying within a Biblically established theological framework. Ultimately, along with the other four points of Calvinism, I believe in limited atonement because it brings to life the Gospel of Christ in a manner that is Biblical, yet vibrant. It helps us to understand that even though all men are absolutely vile and wicked haters of God who never would choose to follow God in our sin-induced spiritual deadness, He still reached down before the beginning of time out of love for us and chose each of us specifically to be brought back to Himself. He accomplished this through the sacrificial atonement of Christ and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit, with each member of the Trinity remaining consistent in purpose and application throughout.

RESOURCES

Bahnsen, G. (1972). Limited Atonement. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt004.htm

Gotquestions.org. (n.d.). Limited Atonement - Is it Biblical. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.gotquestions.org/limited-atonement.html

Owen, J. (n.d.). For Who Did Christ Die? Retrieved March 16, 2010, from Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/Owen_limited.html

Spurgeon, C. (1858, February 28). Particular Redemption. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from Spurgeon.org: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm