Introduction
One of the most disputed aspects in the theory of the atonement concerns the question, “For whom did Christ die?” In the famous acronym for five-point Calvinism, TULIP, the letter “L” stands for “limited atonement” and is most often the point which is denied by those who claim to be four-point Calvinists. This presentation covers the two major views within Evangelicalism. The first view of limited atonement holds that Christ died specifically and only for His elect and, thus, the cross has salvivic benefit only to those who will believe. The second view of unlimited atonement holds that Christ died generally for the whole world and, thus, the benefits of the cross are universally available for believers and unbelievers alike. Both groups deny that all persons will believe, become saved, and go to heaven and both groups agree that Christ’s death was of sufficient worth to cover the sins of all the world, so valuable was the sacrifice. I’ll be using the term “particularists” to refer to those who hold to limited atonement and the term “generalists” to refer to those who hold to unlimited atonement. To give you a sense for how controversial this issue is, consider the displayed table of historical and living representatives who fall on either side of the controversy. In addition a new book on this topic entitled, “Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views,” is scheduled to be released in February, 2015.[1]
The Rationale of Particular Atonement
The reasoning of particularists can be divided into the seven blue bullets shown in Figure 2. Please follow along as I describe each point.
The first bullet may be responded to by observing that while history is a useful tool, it does not guarantee veracity. Sound logic and Scripture is needed to buttress this argument (which is related to the fifth bullet below). The second argument uses logic in an attempt to persuade. However, the realization that “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Luke 15:7 ESV) diminishes its persuasiveness, for the love of God does not deem as insignificant even one person created in His image. The third bullet is passionately moving and while it explains the love and concern that the Savior has for His elect, it does not deny that He may have also demonstrated love and concern for the non-elect on the cross as well. This same logic applies to the fourth bullet, “Christ’s intercedes exclusively for His own.” In other words, great love for God’s elect does not necessarily equate to disinterest or disdain towards those who are ultimately passed over in the providence of God. The fifth bullet attempts to present an exclusive connection between the soteriological doctrines in that those who are foreknown are automatically guaranteed to be predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Thus, while the cross was undoubtedly intended for the elect in a unique way to provide them with a blessed destiny, it does not stand to reason that God could not have planned for the cross to serve some purpose for the non-elect as well. This sixth bullet is more complicated to address. It rightly assumes that every blessing the redeemed will ever receive is somehow connected with the provision that Christ made for us on the cross. While it is true that the Greek words we translate as “purchased”, “redeemed”, and “ransomed” are a part of our soteriological language, these economic terms are related to the debt mankind incurred as sinners, for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). Therefore, Christ purchased our freedom out of the slave market of sin and earned our forgiveness and propitiation by drinking the cup of God’s wrath Himself (Matt 26:42). However, the wonders of life with God, our eternal home in paradise, and our destinies in which each day will be better than the last are not blessings which God now owes us because they were purchased for us on the cross. They are freely given to us out of His love and grace without compulsion. Eph 2:6-7 states, “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”
The last bullet is the strongest argument in the particularist’s arsenal and states that there are certain doctrines initiated by the atonement of Christ which by definition are God-ward and therefore change our stance with Him quite apart from anything we do (including our faith). Therefore, the effectual nature they have is indicative of a one-time escape from divine justice and wrath that need not be repeated. Such are the doctrines of ransom, propitiation, and reconciliation. If those for whom Christ died are truly rescued from such danger, how is it that not all will go to heaven? It must be, says the particularist, that Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect. Erickson states, “The nature of a ransom (Matt. 20:28 and Mark 10:45) is such that, when paid and accepted, it automatically frees those for whom it is intended. No further obligation can be charged against them. Now if the death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, not just for the elect, then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet Scripture tells us that those who do not accept Christ are not redeemed from the curse of the law. If the death of Christ was a universal ransom, it seems that in their case a double payment for sin is required.”[2] We will revisit this argument later.
The Rationale of Universal Atonement
With regard to the advocates of universal atonement, their perspective can be understood and categorized according to the table in Figure 3 entitled, “Evidences Used For Unlimited Atonement.” Once again, please follow along as I briefly critique each of the five arguments.
As we did with the particularists’ arguments, let’s sift the wheat from the chaff. The first bullet can be reasoned away with by particularists as a ground for universal atonement by recognizing that only God knows who will ultimately accept the invitation of God to enter His kingdom from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev 5:9). Therefore, we must offer the general call of God to all persons and allow the effective of call of God to occur by the Holy Spirit as He speaks to their hearts. In addressing the second argument particularists would say that it is not contrary to God’s nature to desire that a certain outcome might come about for the benefit of certain entities, all the while valuing a higher more honorable objective that would preclude such an outcome from happening in each and every case. The interaction between the perfect and permissive wills of God is often too mysterious for us to fully fathom in this life. The third argument in which Christ’s atonement is spoken of in “world”-wide terms is actually quite strong when it is taken into account that the Greek word for “world” (kosmos, used 78 times in John’s writings) is normally given very negative connotations in the New Testament. Thus, when we read a verse like John 3:16, it should not be automatically construed that the Bible is merely speaking of God’s elect in people groups across the globe, for example. Instead, we should be reminded of Rom 4:5 which says, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…” By nature these are the only kind of people born into the world since the fall of Adam. Thus, 1 John 2:2 becomes a credible support for unlimited atonement. The fourth bullet is also persuasive since the evidence for unlimited atonement is being gathered not only from the Johannine writings in bullet three, but also from the Pauline and general epistles… and even the Old Testament! The last three verses each have something of note to share. Notice that in 1 Tim 2:5-6 the Greek word translated “ransom” is used. This is the same root word as that used in Mark 10:45 for “ransom” (lootron). What’s interesting then is that whatever problems this idea of a ransom (discussed in the last section) has for generalists due to the difficulty of a double jeopardy, it now also has a problem for particularists as well since Christ is said to have given “Himself as a ransom for all.” 1 Tim 4:10 is as strong a statement as a generalists could wish for: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” Erickson states, “This is a particularly interesting and significant verse, since it seems to indicate a difference in the salvation accomplished for believers and for others.”[3] And Isa 53:6 is notable not only for being clearly in favor of universal atonement, but also in explicitly tying it to the universality of mankind’s sinful condition. Erickson puts it this way, “This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.”[4] The fifth and last arguments are also powerful in that they indicate through the atonement of Christ, even those who will not be ultimately saved were “bought” by Christ or “sanctified” by Him in the sense that they were set apart in some way. Regarding this class of verses, Erickson argues, “Taken together, these texts make an impressive presentation that those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved are not coextensive.”[5]
Summary of Main Issues
The view of particular atonement is that Christ died only for His elect. The largest problem with this view are the plethora of passages that speak of the atonement in universal terms and the explicit Scriptures that point to the idea that Christ died even for some who will not believe, such as 1 Tim 4:10 (“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe”) or Heb 10:29 (“How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”).
The view of universal atonement is that Christ died for all humanity. The largest problem with this view is the idea that if Christ really died and took the punishment for all humanity, then how is it that all humanity is not ultimately saved? Wouldn’t it be unjust of God to accept Christ’s sacrifice as the payment for the sins of all humanity, including the non-elect, only to require payment for the sins of the unbelieving non-elect again on the day of judgment? If Christ’s work on the cross has truly ransomed all humanity from divine judgment, propitiated the just wrath of God against sin, and reconciled ungodly sinners to a holy Father, how is it that the non-elect are again brought under judgment on the last day?
Generalists will reply that unless the pardon is believed and received, it is not valid. Thus, even though Christ genuinely died for their sins, even for those who won’t believe, Christ’s payment is not actually applied to their sin debt. They use the example of the first Passover in Egypt to show that even though the lamb was slain, its blood needed to be applied to the doorposts of the Israelite home in order to provide protection.[6]
However, when we read 1 John 2:2 concerning the doctrine of propitiation it states, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse seems favorable to generalists, but it has implications on their defense against double jeopardy because it means that the wrath of God has really been satisfied. If God’s wrath is satisfied, there shouldn’t even be a day of judgment for unbelievers that must be endured because of their lack of faith in applying the blood of Christ to their sins. The same reasoning can be applied to the universal reconciliation verses. 2 Cor 5:18-19 states, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” Since actual reconciliation has taken place (not merely potential reconciliation), the threat of just condemnation has been dealt with at the source… it does not need to wait until belief has been applied at the destination.
It’s as if a huge adversary (God’s wrath against sin) is on the other side of a door, trying to break it down and get at you to do you harm. Using the above analogy universalists claim that danger is averted by the believer by exercising faith which shields them from danger. However, unbelievers that do not exercise faith and apply the blood of Christ to the sins are not protected. They are placed in double jeopardy by their lack of faith when the adversary finally breaks through. However, through the doctrines of ransom, propitiation, and reconciliation, the pounding on the door has actually stopped. The adversary is gone. If such is the case, then how can there be a final judgment for unbelievers? This is not a problem for particularists who believe that Christ died only for the elect and secured ransom, propitiation, and reconciliation for believers only.
So we are back where we started. Particularists have the difficulty of explaining some very straightforward verses and generalists have a problem discovering a reason for why unbelievers must face a final judgment, even though their debts were (supposedly) paid for by Christ.
Confirming Our Fears
Have we really assessed the situation clearly? Perhaps we’re making far too much of our theological dilemma and have begun tripping over our own feet now. However, a reading of Matt 18:21-35, the parable of the unforgiving servant, is most instructive:
Notice in the parable that the strengths of both positions appear to be under attack. Particularists claim that God cannot justly put a defendant under double jeopardy, yet this seems to be contradicted by verses 34-35. Generalists claim that an authentic universal atonement can still result in condemnation for the non-elect as long as the pardon is not received by faith. Yet for the unforgiving servant, faith that he was truly pardoned appears to have been exercised when he left the courtroom under his own recognizance and hunted down his debt-laden fellow servant. Thus, we seem to have the kind of situation in Jesus’ parable that we have arrived at from our theological deductions. While this doesn’t seem to get us closer to an answer, it at least helps to confirm that our problem appears to be real and not a figment of our imagination.
Proposed Solution: Universal Atonement, Dual Culpability
So how do we resolve this dilemma? I would first note that we are sinners by nature and by choice. Eph 2:3 states, “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Col 2:13 tells us, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses…” As a result the atonement of Christ necessarily resolves our sin problem in two stages. Stage one involves the death of Christ for our sins (those God-rebelling acts in thought, word, and deed of both commission and omission) and stage two involves the resurrection of Christ for our faith, adoption, justification, regeneration, and sanctification, i.e. the transformation of our status and being such that our hearts of stone are taken away and we are given hearts of flesh, the Holy Spirit, as the down payment of our inheritance in Christ.
I would suggest that Christ died for the sins of all humanity. The reason that the unbelieving non-elect are still judged on the day of judgment is not for what they did (that is no longer an issue… remember this in your evangelism), but for who they are. So one might ask, “What of those passages like 1 Cor 11:30-32 and Acts 12:20-23 where God’s justice is exercised against specific sins… weren’t they already paid for according to your view?” Yes, but God still uses visible sins as a thermometer of the heart and takes action to discipline His children to conform them to Christ (Gal 4:19; Rom 8:28-29) and restrain/control the sin of unbelievers in this world as He sees fit in order to further His divine plan in history. Matt 7:15-20 says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
So on the last day when books are opened and the wicked dead are judged according to their deeds (Rev 20:12), their deeds are merely the visible and historical proof of who they have been on the inside all along. Matt 25:31-34, 41 describes the last judgment for those on earth in these terms: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” Their deeds merely revealed who were the sheep and who were the goats in this passage.
An example where God may forgive what a person has done without forgiving who a person is may be found in Numbers 14:19-23 which states: “‘In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.’ The Lord replied, ‘I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times—not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.’”
Jesus, understanding that one’s salvation depended on both the forgiveness of what they’ve done (their sins) and a transformation of who they are (they’re sinners), looked past His own sacrificial work on the cross (essential as it is) and towards His intercessory work in heaven. He told His disciples in John 16:7, “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” Earlier that night, He had promised, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17).
Imagine a grocery store owner who has hired sales clerks to man the registers. One clerk begins to eat the groceries when no one is looking, little realizing that the owner has hidden cameras everywhere and knows that the clerk has been stealing from him. The owner confronts the clerk and the clerk begs him to let him keep his job. The owner forgives his sins, but realizes that this is a man who, by his fallen nature, will take advantage of the store owner’s kindness and, unless converted, will eventually lapse into his old ways again. When the store upgrades to a superstore in a new location, the clerk is not offered a chance to come along. John 8:34-36 states, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chafer, Lewis Sperry and John Walvoord. Major Bible Themes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1974.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, Volume 3. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2004.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.
Pentecost, Dwight. Things Which Become Sound Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1965.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986.
Ryrie, Charles. Understanding Bible Doctrine. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983.
[1] Amazon.com, “Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views,” Online: http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Extent-Atonement-3-Views/dp/1433669714/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403307251&sr=1-1&keywords=Perspectives+on+the+Extent+of+the+Atonement%3A+3+Views (Accessed: 20 June 2014).
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 756.
[3] Ibid., 757.
[4] Ibid., 757.
[5] Ibid., 758.
[6] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986).
ForWord Discoveries 