The
Reformation: Its Causes and Its Theology
Lesson
7: The Theology of the Reformation: Limited
Atonement
By John C. Orlando, Jr.
I.
Definition
A. Also called Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. Christ's atonement had a particular or definite people in view. I also use the word definite to refer to the fact that Christ certainly (definitely) secured the salvation of His people. So powerful and effective was Christ's work of atonement that He perfectly saved a multitude of persons from every nation, tribe, and tongue from the foundation of the world, who cannot be anything but saved.
B. Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but is efficient only for the elect. Note: Both the Arminian and the Calvinist affirm this. They differ on the design and efficacy of the atonement.
C. The design and intent of the atonement was for Christ to perfectly accomplish the salvation of His sheep (i.e., the whole company of the elect/His church/His friends/His people) only. His atonement, while having some reference to all men, was especially designed for the salvation of many men--His people, and it is for their sins only that Christ paid the full penalty. All those whose sins were propitiated by Christ on the cross must and will be saved.
II. Two Views: One view limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent:
A. Unlimited Atonement: Christ died equally for all people. Christ’s death made salvation possible for every person, but guaranteed it for no one.
B. Limited Atonement: Christ did not die equally for all men. Christ died and paid for the sins of His people (the elect, which according to the Bible comprises a multitude of persons that no man can number from every nation, tribe, and tongue) to guarantee their salvation.
C. Language Barrier: As you can see, language can be very deceiving concerning this point. When one hears "unlimited atonement" versus "limited atonement," our first reaction is that unlimited atonement must be true. But the only thing that "unlimited atonement" means is that Christ merely made possible the salvation of every person, but didn't actually save any person. The cross of Christ in this view has no saving efficacy in and of itself. It only becomes efficacious when a person believes. The efficacy of the cross then is based on the decision of the sinner. Thus, even those who hold to unlimited atonement also believe that the atonement is "limited," for Christ's atonement is only effective to them that believe, and not everyone will believe. Limited Atonement on the other hand teaches that Christ made certain the salvation of every person it was intended for, and it actually, not possibly or potentially, saves a multitude of people that cannot be numbered. The cross of Christ in this view is supremely efficacious in and of itself--it doesn't depend on the choice of a sinner to make it effective, it already is effective! The non-Reformed view limits the power of the cross, while the Reformed view limits its scope. It is a great irony that the Reformed view believes that the cross of Christ actually accomplishes far more than the non-Reformed view does, yet it is the Reformed view that is labeled as "limited."
D. Get past the language barrier: One way to do this is to use words that really capture what each view teach. Instead of Unlimited Atonement versus Limited Atonement, we could say it is Ineffective Atonement versus Effective Atonement, or Potential Atonement versus Actual Atonement.
III.
Actual or Potential Savior?
A. Was anybody actually saved at the Cross? Reformed = yes; Non-Reformed = no.
B. God accomplishes His holy will. Every person for whom Christ died will be saved.
C. Neither the Architect of the plan of salvation nor the Savior experience frustration.
D. Do we believe in a Savior who actually saves, or a Savior who fails to save?
IV.
The Substitute
A. The subsitutionary view of the atonement is a Reformed concept. Arminian scholar J. Kennet Grider, “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus, many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins...Arminians teach that what Christ did He did for every person, therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...His death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement.” Dr. James White comments: “It is very difficult to understand upon what basis the Father could forgive those who “repent and believe,” especially since there is no substitution and hence no payment of the penalty for sin.”
B. Justice: Can God punish a person for an offence that has already been punished?
V.
Quotes:
“…We
have not seen the full meaning of the Cross till we have seen it…as the center
of the Gospel, flanked on one hand by total inability and unconditional election
and on the other by irresistible grace and final preservation.” – J.I.
Packer
VI.
The Bible: Mt 1:21,20:28,26:28;Mk 10:45;Jn
6:37,10:11,14-15, 24-29,11:51-52,
17:9-10;Ac 20:28;Rm
8:32-33;Ep 5:25;Titus 2:14;Hb 2:17, 9:15;10:10-14;1 Pt 2:24-25; Rv 5:9;Is
53:4-12
VII.
Conclusion: “The
Arminian [Non-Reformed] say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by
it. Did Christ die so as to secure
the salvation of all men? They say,
“No, certainly not.”…Did Christ die to secure the salvation of any man in
particular? They answer “no.”
Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ?
Why, you. You say that
Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody…We say
Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no
man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are
saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being
anything but saved.” - Charles
Haddon Spurgeon
One
final thought: if the non-Reformed view of the atonement were true,
how many people would end up being saved? None. If the Reformed view
of the atonement were true, how many people would end up being saved?
According to Scripture, it is a number that cannot even be counted. Which
view is more honoring to God? You do the math.