The Definite Atonement

This is one of the most problematic doctrines and one that divides earnest and sincere believers.  As Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."  There is room for debate on the doctrine and like eternal security, there are proof-texts for both sides:  Please read on with an open mind.

The issue in question and open to debate is this:  Did the Atonement make possible the salvation of all, or the salvation of the elect certain? Specifically: Is faith a work of man (as Rome and Arminians assert) or the gift of grace?  Or Does God save us, or enable us to save ourselves?  Was Christ's work of redemption accomplished in toto on the cross?   R. C. Sproul has made this the crux of the matter.  It is the issue argued at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that condemned the Remonstrants who objected to the Reformed position, better known as the Calvinist's schema.

To put things in perspective, it is not your grasp of the deeper truths of the Bible, but your personal application that matters:  You must believe that Jesus died and rose again for you personally to be saved.  Remember the hymns:  "Amazing love! how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me" and "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me."  "Alas! and did my Savior bleed?  And did my Sovereign die?  Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?" It is not your theory or apprehension of the doctrine of the Atonement that saves you.  I reiterate it takes faith to believe that he not only died but lives in victory for you individually, not to apprehend a doctrine.

As you will see there is a problem in semantics, because both Arminian and Reformed views limit the Atonement in some respect and the terminology limited and unlimited Atonement (sometimes referred to as General Atonement) are insufficient to describe what happens on the cross.  Both sides agree that there is no universal atonement that saves all.  The problem begins with the definition of atonement, which is also translated propitiation and reconciliation and even expiation--it depends upon what you are focusing on: the divine or the human side, the positive and negative aspect, one's righteousness or sin.

Calvinists, or theologians of the "Reformed" tradition, believe in the so-called "limited atonement" [better referred to as "definite atonement" (or particular redemption)--Atonement means satisfaction or to set things right and make amends (between God and man)--because "definite" implies that God has a design or purpose behind what He was doing--He always does!] and this belief in a limited atonement is a misnomer, (Arminians believe in "unlimited atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice covered everyone's sins--note that they were also known as the Remonstrants were condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618, which created a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe).  They have limited the Atonement [also in covering every sin but the unpardonable one--that is why unbelievers go to hell!]:  they say that when Christ said "Tetelestai" or "It is finished," [not "I am finished," implying it waited for our cooperation and synergistic effort of ratification by a work of faith] that it wasn't finished completely.  In other words, He wasn't saving anyone, but only making salvation possible; it would have been possible that no one got saved. [This was their articulated position at the Synod of Dort.]

Does God actually have a design and purpose for atonement or not?  Actually, God finished salvation's work on the cross (He didn't say, "I am finished, but "It is finished.") and He ratified it on our behalf as His elect. "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9)--i.e., it is not a cooperative venture but completely the work of God who gets all the glory. "The Lord knows those who are His."   You're either limiting the extent (to whom it reaches) or the purpose of the Atonement.  God doesn't leave anything to chance.  Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

I postulate that Christ's atonement is sufficient for everyone who has faith in Christ, and no one can claim that they are on the "wrong list," as it were.  "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."  "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."  You are either limiting the extent of the atonement (for whom) or its sufficiency and adequacy.  What they commonly assert is that the atonement is "sufficient for all, but efficient for some" or taking effect for the elect only--saying we receive or accept God's salvation to certify or complete it. We must personally appropriate His substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

If it avails for all, then you have a proof-text for universalism, as 1 John 2:2 (NIV)  proclaims:  "For He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse actually means that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world and ipso facto no one has an excuse because of it--specifically, salvation is not just for the Jews, who thought it was just for them.  But Christ died "...that he might taste death for everyone"  (Heb. 2:9).

The omniscience of God assures us that God knows those who are His and who will believe and who wouldn't believe. We are limiting God by saying that He waits for our ratification to complete the work.  God doesn't just see ahead who will be saved and elect them (prescient view) but elects us unto faith.  "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).  If we study Rom. 8:29-30 to study the golden chain of redemption we can see that all that God calls get saved ("And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified."), and this is not the case with us, because the general call we give in evangelizing sometimes falls on deaf ears. as opposed to God's inner call that never gets rejected because of irresistible grace, and Christ gets rejected.

We are assured that anyone who believes or has genuine saving and living faith will be saved.  The only thing standing in the way of a believer is his lack of faith in receiving the free gift of eternal life in Christ by grace.  No one will be able to blame Christ for their condemnation!  Let me conclude that no one is saved by their theory of the Atonement;  There are indeed pious believers on both sides of this issue.  Soli Deo Gloria!

How Limited Is The Atonement?

NB:  WHETHER YOU BELIEVE CHRIST DIED FOR ALL THE SINS OF MANKIND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, OR JUST FOR THE SHEEP, EITHER WAY ONE LIMITS THE ATONEMENT (EITHER IN EXTENT OF OUTREACH OR EXTENT OF EFFICACY).

Actually, those who believe in unlimited atonement are either universalists or believe in an atonement that only makes possible the salvation of all but actually saves no one for certain--that is a real limitation. In a so-called limited atonement, it actually accomplishes something--the salvation of the elect ("it is finished"). In 1 John 2:2 we see that Christ is the "atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not ours only but those of the whole world."

The problem lies in the definition of "world." The Greek word kosmos has several meanings. It doesn't always refer to everyone without exception. Sometimes it refers to everyone without distinction. In other words, all kinds of people can get saved, not all people. The word can mean creation or the universe and the way to test this is to plug the word into the sentence and see if it makes sense. John uses the word in John 3 several times and every time the word creation makes sense whereas believers or every person doesn't make sense.

We have to be careful so we don't prove that God saves everyone. The atonement was infinite in value and only avails for the believer, otherwise, everyone would be saved. What they say is "sufficient for all, efficient for some." God sent His Son into the universe because He so loved the universe.

In 1 John 2:2 what He did for us He did for the cosmos. He did the same thing for the cosmos. Now we just have to figure out what He did. In many translations, the word propitiation isn't used because it is above the reading level of the readers. They use the word atonement instead. Martin Luther used the word reconciliation. You see how the translators like to do your thinking for you. If Christ redeemed us He also redeemed the world or creation. Well in a way He did. Another way of looking at this verse is to see that there is one way of salvation, for the Jew as well as for the Gentile--Christ is the way of salvation, not for the Jews only but for the whole world. The main argument for the limited atonement is that Christ suffered once for the "sheep" and for His "friends" and not for the lost. "The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." "No love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Also, there is the law of double jeopardy which says that if Christ suffered for your sins, how can God make you pay for them in hell. The whole question is whether Christ died for Hitler's sins or not, and if he has to pay his debt in hell on top of that. Some Arminians say that Christ died for all sinners and it's their fault if they don't accept the "free gift of eternal life." But doesn't God know ahead of time who will believe and didn't Christ only pray for the believers in the high priestly prayer of John 17?

The answer is that God offers salvation to everyone through the general call of the gospel but only the elect will hear. But all that God calls get justified (cf. Rom. 8:30). "The elect obtained unto it and the rest were hardened"m (Rom. 11:7).  "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).  The gospel is for "all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).  We don't know who the elect are so we have to preach to everyone and we preach the gospel because we are commanded to, not because we know who will be saved. The Scriptures say that "no one can resist His will" (Rom. 9:19). NB:  We are not saved by our theory of the atonement, period.   Soli Deo Gloria!