The Extent of the Atonement: Systematic Theology (Part 3 of 5)

What is the extent of the atonement? I have shown in a previous paper that since the Protestant Reformation, there have been two basic answers to this question: (1) The first is known as the “universal atonement” theory and its adherents postulate that the atonement was made by Christ for every man, woman, and child. This position is generally held by those who are theologically Arminian although some Calvinists fall into this camp as well (Amyraldians). (2) The second theory is known as “limited atonement,” “definite atonement,” or “particular redemption.” Those who hold to this theory are generally reformed or Calvinistic in their theology and believe that the atonement of Christ, while having sufficient value for all mankind, is only effective for the elect of God. It is my understanding, based on the evidence I see in Scripture, that the Calvinistic or reformed view of “particular redemption” is the correct position. In this paper I will look systematically at the extent of the atonement as revealed in Scripture. I will show the passages used to defend both views and will show why I think the Calvinistic or reformed view stands out as the correct one.

Scriptures Used in Support of Universal Atonement

The Scripture passages that are used in support of a universal atonement fall generally into two categories. There are those passages that mention in some fashion Christ’s death as being for “the world” and those that refer to his death as being for “all.”

First, the “world” passages: In John 3:16-17, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (ESV). 1 John 2:2 reads, “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” In 2 Corinthians 5:19 Paul writes, “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

Second, the “all” passages: Jesus says in John 12:32, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Paul writes in Romans 5:18, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” Again Paul, this time in his letter to Timothy writes, “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (2:3-5). In Titus 2:11 we read, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.”

Scriptures Used in Support of Particular Redemption

Some of the passages used to support this view are those that seem to show a particularity of people for whom Christ died. John 10:11 reads: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” John 10:15 reiterates this with, “Just as the Father knows me and I know the father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” In Ephesians 5:23 and Acts 20:28, we are told that Jesus gave his life for his body or for his church.

Other passages seem to teach that the death of Christ did not make a potential sacrifice for all men, but instead that Christ death was an effective sacrifice that secured redemption for many. In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul writes, “Cleanse out the old leaven that may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed.” The book of Hebrews is chalk full of references to the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is one sample: “For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

I would now like to point out some things that believers on both sides of the debate will agree upon. I borrow this list from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology. First, “not all will be saved” (597). The term “universal atonement” does not in any way imply that those who hold to it believe in the eventual salvation of all mankind. Those who believe that are known as “universalists” and that position falls outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. Second, “A free offer of the gospel can rightly be made to every person ever born . . . ‘whoever will’ may come to Christ for salvation . . . This free offer of the gospel is extended in good faith to every person” (597). And third, “All agree that Christ’s death in itself . . . has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and the Son decreed” (597). The question is not in the sufficiency or merit of the atonement, but its intent.
Where I Stand

As I mentioned in the introduction, I believe that, regarding the extent of the atonement, the Scriptures teach the reformed or Calvinistic view. While there is a good deal of evidence for both sides, I hold firmly to the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This means that the evidence must somehow be reconcilable and that it should be Scripture that does the reconciling. In this final section, I will very briefly trace out two lines of Scriptural evidence that seem to me to validate the Calvinistic viewpoint over and against the Arminian.

The first line of evidence comes from the use of language that shows a particularity in the saving work of Jesus. It is evident from the Scripture passages quoted above that particular groups of people had their sins paid for on the cross of Christ. While there are certainly those passages that include “the world” or “all” in reference to Christ’s work, they always come with qualifications. “The world” never necessarily includes every individual and neither does “all.” Michael Horton points out a great example in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace. In the book he writes about the 1984 Olympics, which were staged in Los Angeles. Horton says that he remembers hearing that “The world is at our doorstep” and feeling relieved that that did not mean every individual on earth (106-107).

While the terms “all” and “world” are easily synthesized with the Calvinistic position, it is not so easy to synthesize the particular language (especially the term, “elect.”) with a view that Christ actually died for all. There are some particular statements that do not necessarily exclude a wider audience. Reymond makes the point in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith that, “Aristotelian logic, which states that if all S is P, then it may be inferred that some S is P, but conversely, it cannot be inferred from the fact that some S is P that the remainder of S is not P” (673-674). However, as Reymond later points out, the term “elect” is special. It indicates a particular group for whom there was a particular purpose in the course of redemption. The semantic meaning of the term implies that there are some who are not elect. Therefore, if the Father chose (or elected) men and women, knowing that it was only them who would eventually be saved, then it would be an inconsistency for Jesus to try to save every individual. There would be disharmony within the Godhead.

The second and final line of evidence for the Calvinistic viewpoint that I will cover comes from the sacrificial nature of the atonement and its logical consequences. If Christ paid the price for all of the sins of all mankind, how is it that the Arminian can say that any man will be lost? If he did indeed die for the sins of all mankind, that would include the sin of unbelief which would bring us to the false doctrine of universalism. Yet if he died for his elect (as I believe the Scriptures show he did), then he will certainly cover all their sins and bring them effectually to God.

So while it is a complex issue and one that is emotionally charged on both sides, I do believe that the scriptural evidence points conclusively to the death of Christ being for a particular group of people. This group is called by many different names in the scriptures including “the elect,” “the church,” “the sheep,” and “true Israel.” It is actually a reassuring doctrine as it does not leave open to the believer the possibility that in the end, Christ’s death may have no meaning for him, but I’ll get to that in the application paper.



Bibliography

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Horton, Michael. Putting Amazing Back into Grace. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2002.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.