Calvinism Defended:
Limited Atonement
By
This is the fourth section of the e-mail exchange I had with Bill, an individual who objected against Calvinism. Click here to go back to the contents, or here to go to the full 88 page exchange.
In this part of the exchange, I continue with the exposition of key texts related to each of the 5 points of TULIP. Having addressed Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, I am now addressing Limited Atonement. Please note, I did not include every passage that could have been included, nor did I address any of the counter-texts used by Arminians (e.g., Matt 23:37-39, John 12:32, 1 Tim 2:1-7; 2 Pet 3:9, 1 John 2:2). My concern was to provide a positive presentation of what we believe and why we believe it. All of the so-called "problem texts" have been dealt with many times over by many well respected Reformed teachers who have provided in-depth exegetical analysis of the texts in question. The same simply cannot be said of the other side concerning the texts provided by Calvinists.
My second e-mail response continued:
Limited Atonement:
We use this term to describe primarily the intent and design of the
atonement. However, in discussing
the intent and design of the atonement, the power (or lack thereof from a
non-Reformed perspective) of the work of Christ on the cross is also brought to
light. Some, because of the
misunderstanding and confusion inherent in the term “Limited Atonement”
refer to this as “Definite” or “Particular” atonement.
I prefer to call it “Perfect” or “Actual” atonement.
Perfect in the sense that Christ perfectly accomplished all that He was
sent to accomplish by His active and passive obedience.
The designs of God are altogether perfect, and if God had so designed to
save men by Christ, then every single person whom Christ died (and lived) for
must be saved. I call it
“actual” in the sense that Christ did not merely hypothetically save people
at the cross, He really saved them! He
did not potentially save people at the cross, He actually saved them! Thus,
limited atonement in essence teaches that God had a perfect plan to save a
multitude of imperfect sinners whom He calls His sheep through the perfect life
and redemptive work of His perfect Son, and that all those for whom God intended
to save, and for whom the Son lived and died, shall and must be saved.
To summarize the views, in the non-Reformed
view, the atonement was necessary to bring about salvation, but was not in and
of itself sufficient to bring about salvation. It
is contingent upon man to make up for what is lacking in God’s work.
The Calvinist maintains that the atonement was necessary to bring about
salvation, and it was sufficient in and of itself to bring and secure salvation
for all that it was intended for. There
is nothing lacking in the atonement. Every
person for whom Christ atoned will be saved. Jesus infallibly accomplished the salvation of all those
whom He was sent save, which were only those who were given to Him by the
Father.
Verses:
Matt 1:21
“And she will bring forth a Son,
and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their
sins."
-- In one verse we see both the office and mission of Jesus.
Then name “Jesus” means The Lord is salvation.
Thus, Jesus is called “Jesus” for a simple reason:
Salvation is of the Lord, and the Lord will save His people. Is every single person who ever has or will live considered
to be the people of God? No.
When we compare this verse with other verses related to the redemptive
work of Christ, this “people” is that group that is spoken of in John 6:37
that are said to be given to Jesus by the Father.
It is this group that is said to be “chosen in Christ before the
foundation of the world.” (Eph 1:4), that is, those who were purchased for God
with the blood of Christ from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Rev
5:9). It is those for whom He gave
Himself to redeem from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people
for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14).
It is His “brethren,” i.e., the “children whom God has given
[Him]” for whom He tasted death and brings to glory (Heb 2:9-13).
It is the elect, for whom Christ was not spared, but delivered up for
every single one of them, and freely gives them all things (Rom 8:31-32). It is the many for whom He gave His life a ransom (Matt
20:28). It is the sheep for whom He
laid down His life (John10:14).
John 6:37 “All that the Father
giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast
out.”
-- Is it conceivable that Jesus would have died for those whom the Father
had not given Him? To suggest
that is to suggest that the purpose of the Father and the purpose of the Son are
two different things, and that in turn is to introduce conflict within the
Godhead. It would cause disunity
among the Persons of the Trinity. Jesus
came to do all of the Fathers will, nothing more and nothing less (cf John
17:4), and the Holy Spirit came to perfectly apply the perfect of Christ to
Christ’s sheep, and only to Christ’s sheep.
John
10:14-15 “I am the good shepherd and I know My own and My own
know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My
life for the sheep.”
-- Jesus states plainly that
He lays down His life for a definite, particular, “limited” group—His
sheep. There are only two
categories of persons: sheep and goats. Other
terms used to denote these 2 categories in Scripture are elect and non-elect;
the children of God and the children of the devil; believers and unbelievers.
No matter how one “slices” it, there can be only one conclusion drawn
from the words of Jesus here: He
made an atonement for His sheep only. Or, we could say He made an atonement only for the elect, the
children of God, believers. However
you look at it though, it is simply impossible to maintain that Jesus atoned for
every single person who ever has or ever will live, for not every single person
who ever has or ever will live are considered God’s sheep, the children of
God, or believers. Jesus was sent
to atone, to be the propitiation for, to redeem, reconcile, purchase, and save
only those He was sent to accomplish those things for, nothing more, and nothing
less, and every single one of those He did all of those things for will, not
might, be saved, because, as Jesus said, “It is finished.”
Now, who is it that Jesus is talking to in the context of the passage?
Verse 24 tells us, “The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying
to Him, “How long will you keep us in suspense?
If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
By the term “the Jews” I take that to mean most likely the
Pharisees/Sadducees in particular. Jesus
goes on to tell them, “I told you, but you do not believe…”
Why is it that they did not believe?
Jesus tells them, “…you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” (verse 26).
Here we have just simple cause and effect.
Those who were confronting Jesus here did not manifest the “effect”
of believing, and the cause of why they did not manifest that effect is due to
the cause of them not being one of Jesus’ sheep.
The converse of this is true as well though:
the effect of believing is due to the cause of being one of Christ’s
sheep. Belief is not the cause of
the effect of being a sheep. Rather,
being a sheep produces the effect of belief.
This highlights another significant point that is addressed in
“Irresistible Grace,” namely, that belief, or saving faith, is always an
effect. In other words, it is
something that is caused, or produced, by something.
That “something” is nothing less than the sovereign, effectual,
regenerating grace of God. The reason you believe, Bill, is not because of something
good in you, but because of something good in God, and God has seen fit to be
incredibly gracious toward you by bestowing upon you the gift of saving faith.
If we do not wish to acknowledge that God is the one responsible for 100%
of our salvation, to include giving us saving faith, then I’m afraid we still
have far too high an opinion about ourselves, and we are claiming for ourselves
a part of the glory for our salvation. I
encourage you to seriously ponder that notion, Bill.
If we cannot assign every single portion of our salvation to grace of
God, then grace is no longer grace, and the Gospel is no longer the Gospel. Yes, to deny this concept is to in fact preach another
gospel, plain and simple.
Acts
20:28 “Take heed therefore
unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood.”
-- Notice, He purchased the church
of God. It is
interesting to note that the Greek word for “church” means “the called out
ones,” and not the “ones who cooperated with grace “ones.””
To be “called out” is a purely monergistic concept, not synergistic,
for there is only one (mono) working power (ergos) that is doing the calling,
and, it is these called out ones that have been (not might be) purchased.
I once heard someone ask in relation to this:
“Did Jesus get what He paid for?”
Only from a Reformed perspective He did. In a non-Reformed concept of the atonement, you have Jesus
buying the slaves out of the marketplace (even those presumably already in
Hell), but then the slaves are still not His.
This calls
attention to the consistency we have seen with the other points.
From the sinful mass of humanity God has chosen to save an innumerable
amount of people. The Father has given this people to Christ.
Christ atones for this people’s sins.
God calls these people out of darkness into His marvelous light.
All of God, all of Christ, all of the Spirit, all of grace…a perfect
life and sacrifice that accomplishes all that it was designed to accomplish
(Jesus did not come to merely “help” sinners get saved, but to actually save
them, and that is precisely what He did (without our help).
The non-Reformed view simply cannot say this, because its view of the
work of Christ is far too anemic (and, in essence, Jesus did not accomplish
anything…it was all “hypothetical”).
Actually, it cannot even be described as anemic, because that still
assigns some power to the cross, albeit a very weak power.
Anemic, then, is far too grandiose a term to use to describe the
non-Reformed view of the work of Christ on the cross.
A better term would be impotent.
Ephesians
5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
gave Himself up for her.”
-- Again we see
the particularity of the atonement. Who
did Jesus give Himself up for? The
church, i.e., all of the called out ones who ever have and ever will live.
Many more text to look at, as well as examining such words as
propitiation, expiation, redemption, reconciliation, etc.
I know of people who became Calvinists just by examining those words and
what they mean, especially the word propitiation.
As a matter of fact, I became a Calvinist based upon this point.
When I realized that Jesus really did make an actual propitiation whereby
He, once and for, appeased the wrath of God on behalf of His people, and that
Jesus really did expiate our sins, and redeemed us, and reconciled us, and made
an actual, not a potential atonement, I became a Calvinist.
It was at that point that I realized that Jesus really does save.
Here is how I speak about this in my article Why I’m a Calvinist
(www.geocities.com/johnandursula/whycalvinist):
“The
clincher came after I had listened to a lesson taught by Dr. R.C. Sproul in a
teaching series I had purchased some months earlier called The
Cross of Christ…I thought that the lesson would be about Eternal
Security, which I was not interested in hearing about, because by that time I
had even rejected the teaching of Eternal Security (guess you could say that I
was now a consistent Arminian)…What I soon discovered was that the lesson
wasn’t about the doctrine of Eternal Security (necessarily that is), but about
the most controversial point in Calvinism, Limited Atonement… Dr. Sproul began
to talk about a Savior who doesn’t just try to save, but One who
actually does save. He spoke of how people were actually, not potentially,
saved at the cross. He
spoke of how neither the Architect of the plan of salvation nor the Savior
experience frustration to their holy, omnipotent will.
He spoke of the fact that if this doctrine were not true, then Christ
could have theoretically suffered on the cross, and no one might have been
saved. Think of it! The
non-Reformed view teaches that Christ’s atonement only saves if people accept
it. Well, what if no one would have
ever accepted it? Christ, according
to that view, could have died in vain if no one ever accepted Him.
Dear reader, is not that one fact alone enough to cause you to stop and
think for a moment? Is it
conceivable that Christ’s precious Blood could have been spilt in vain?
God forbid!
Sproul
then spoke of how every single person for whom Christ died would be saved,
because Christ never fails to do that which He came to do, i.e., save. In a word, he spoke of the cross as having real
power! He
spoke of a powerful God versus an impotent God who
sits up in Heaven and crosses His fingers hoping that someone would “accept”
His offer. I remember after that lesson, I got up from my couch, turned
off the VCR, and said, “Oh my God, I’m a Calvinist!”
It was as if I had heard the Good News all over again, only this
time it was really good news, because I heard about a God and Christ who
truly is Almighty over all! It was
then that I surrendered to that dreaded, monstrous doctrine I had been warned
about: Calvinism.
The answer to the question Steve [a Calvinist who shared the Reformed
perspective with me, and to whom I was quite hostile in the process! J]
posed to me, which Jesus continues to ask [“Who do you say that I am?”], was
answered. Above all else, Jesus is
the sovereign, omnipotent Savior of the world who always
accomplishes His perfect, holy will.
He is a perfect Savior who perfectly accomplished the redemption He was
sent to accomplish.
As my testimony alludes to, it was coming to an understanding of precisely what Jesus accomplished and finished (if anything) that caused me to see the truth of the Reformed view. It’s those words, Bill, that are just packed with meaning (i.e., propitiation, etc.). If Jesus really did do all of the things conveyed in those words, the there are only 2 options that we have: universalism, or Calvinism. Any other position is simply impossible, unless, of course, we make all of those things purely hypothetical, in which case we completely rob the cross of all of its power, preeminence, and purpose. I simply do not have time for a theology that essentially makes God into a doting grandfather figure, who tries and tries and tries, but can never get anything accomplished because of the “sovereign” and “omnipotent” and “free” and fickle will of man. I simply cannot accept a notion of the work of Christ that has Him going through all the trouble of taking upon Himself human flesh, perfectly obeying the Law at all points, then flogged, crucified, risen, and ascended, just so that there might be a chance, not a guarantee, that people would be saved. And here is another point of irony…people often view the Reformed perspective as being “limited,” when it is the Reformed view alone that teaches that the omnipotence of the cross, whereby Christ infallibly secured and guaranteed the salvation of an innumerable host of people. From a non-Reformed perspective, how many people did the work of Christ on the cross secure and guarantee salvation for? 1 million? No. 100,000? No 10,000? 1,000? No. 100? 10? Uh, no. 1? Nope. 0? Correct! Zero. The big goose egg, zilch, nada, nothing, not one single individual, that’s how many.
Jesus was sent into the world by the Father to save the people that the
Father had given him. I maintain what the Bible clearly teaches: Jesus perfectly
succeeded in His task.
Quotes:
“Limited” sounds very
narrow as compared to “Unlimited.” It leads to misconception and meaningless
controversy. We must insist that all Christians believe in Limited Atonement.
The fact there is a hell proves that statement. Everyone believes that the
ultimate benefits of the atonement are limited to those who believe in Christ.
The real question is NOT “Is the atonement limited,” but rather, “WHO does
the limiting, God or man?” Does God’s sovereign grace and purpose dictate
the ultimate success or failure of the redemptive work of Christ or does the
“sovereign” and fickle will of man decide whether God’s intentions and
purposes will be realized?”
- John G. Reisinger
The following is from Dr. John Owen, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice
Chancellor of Oxford University:
“For
Whom Did Christ Die?
The Father Imposed His
wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men
In which case it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so
none are saved.
b. 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.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment
due unto their sins?
You answer, because of unbelief. 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!”
Scottish Presbyterian Pastor Colin Maxwell:
“The classic non-Calvinist
[argues for] the unlimited nature of the atonement i.e., that Christ died for
elect and reprobate alike without any distinction. This means that Christ
purposed to save those who would finally reject Him, actually took their sins on
His own body to the tree, paid the price in full of their redemption, satisfied
the divine anger and justice, presumably rose again for their justification -
although they were never justified - and sees His sovereign purposes frustrated
because their sin out-bounds His grace. In all this…the Saviour is still meant
to see the travail of His soul and be satisfied. I think not.”
(http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/anticalvinistsites.html)
“The statement that
Christ’s death is sufficient for all and efficient for only those who believe
is also held by Calvinists. Calvin himself was quite happy to quote and endorse
it (Comments on 1 John 2:2) To clear up any misunderstanding on this, we need to
say that Christ’s blood has infinite value (He would not have suffered one
ounce more had, say, Judas been among the elect) We just go along with the
Scripture view that whatever works out in the end has been ordained by God who
“works all things after the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11) and since
only the elect will believe…then this was the purpose of God even when Christ
died upon the Cross. This puts God back on His throne where He belongs and saves
us the embarrassment of believing in a frustrated God playing second fiddle in
His own Universe.”
19th Century Baptist Preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
“If it
was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been
disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth
with fore and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the
very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought
with His blood.”
“He has
punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for
all His people’s sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou art one of
Christ’s people. Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not.
Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy
the soul for whom Jesus died.”
Charles Finney, an Arminian theologian:
“I cannot believe in the
vicarious atonement (i.e. that the death of Christ actually purchased anyone’s
redemption) for if I did I would either have to become a universalist (someone
who believes all humanity will be saved) or a Calvinist (believing that certain
people will be saved).”
Finney's logic was very sound at this point. http://wla.advancedministry.com/index.cfm?i=1041&mid=12&id=1173
Unknown Author:
“The issue in the doctrine
of limited atonement is: Who did
Christ actually redeem, anyway?”