Limited Atonement

The Blog of Steele has not yet died. While Cris and I are in Romania, The Blog of Steele is going to serve as a location for me to post theological based topics that are generally longer than our typical Romania update. I do not want to distract from the update function of our blog www.steeleromania.blogspot.com with a lengthy post on theology. That’s why I have The Blog of Steele.

Today’s post is about the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement. I must confess that before today I knew little about this doctrine. I had heard about it because it is one of the five points of Calvinism. The other four points total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, are doctrines that I am very familiar with and know where they come from in scripture. However I was not aware of the source of limited atonement.

Briefly I will state what limited atonement is. The doctrine is an attempt to answer the question, “For whom did Christ die?” It answers, “For the elect only and not for the whole world.” The proof comes from verses that call Christ a “ransom for many” and not all, prayers that Christ prayed specifically for His elect and not the whole world, (look at John 17,) and perhaps most strongly John 11:49-52.
“And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.” – John 11:49-52
The argument is that Jesus died for the nation (of Israel) and to gather the children of God who were scattered abroad. This does not include non-believers anywhere, so then we should not include non-believers as the recipients of Christ’s death. I would agree with them if this were the only verse on the issue.

I learned some of this yesterday as I was reading The Sovereignty of God by Arthur W. Pink in a section he titled “The Sovereignty of the Son in Salvation.” This section was essentially a defense of limited atonement. I read his proof, and then read how he dealt with the problem texts, and came away with the conclusion that Pink’s arguments were really weak. The problem texts for limited atonement seemed stronger than the texts in its favor, (1 Timothy 2:5-6, 1 John 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15…) so I left perplexed.

1 John 2:2 is the strongest of these verses. It states, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” In what sense can Christ be the propitiation for the whole world? Pink argues that “world” here refers to Gentile believers by trying to show the John’s audience in 1 John was Jewish. It is a weak argument. John Piper agrees with Pink and connects a grammatical similarity between 1 John 2:2 and John 11:52, and from that attempts to prove that world here means the Christians who were not in John’s immediate community. Their arguments do not appear to be satisfactory. 1 John 2:2 is not a stand-alone text. 1 Timothy 2:6 speaks of Jesus being a “ransom for all.” 2 Corinthians 5:14 states “one died for all.” John 1:29 speaks of the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Hebrews 2:9 says that He “might taste death for everyone.” In John 6:51 Jesus speaks of his flesh saying “which I shall give for the life of the world.” This list is not exhaustive.

I do not feel that the Calvinists provide sufficient answers for these scriptures. The answers are always, “well in this passage world means all types of people in the world from whom He will save some,” or “all here means all the children of God.” These claims do not always seem to be fully supported by the context, especially claims made against 1 Timothy 2:6. The context shows that verse six is talking about the whole world, because everyone in the world is referenced in verse 4.

I had to come to the conclusion that limited atonement is not taught by the scriptures. It appears to me to be a doctrine created to allow consistency with the other four points of Calvinism. The question that I am asking myself right now is, “How can the atonement of Christ extend to every man if all are not saved?” The most common answer in theology is that of the Arminian which says that God has endowed men with free will and they reject the gift that was already offered to them. I think that this view denies scripture as well. I found myself in a predicament. How can I deny limited atonement and still believe in God’s sovereignty in choosing who is saved? Scripture testifies clearly that God predestines men to salvation. (Read Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6, John 10, John 17…) So how can Christ have died for someone He knew would never be saved?

I came up with a couple of possible solutions. First, I thought, well perhaps the propitiation of 1 John 2:2 is what allows non-believers to live life and receive common grace before judgment, while it is efficacious for believers. This sounded good, but I realized that this is never taught in scripture, so I dropped it. I pondered a few more possibilities before coming to a realization (that I believe was the Lord) in thinking that Christ’s death is infinite.

Would Christ have had to suffer more if He died for the entire world that He did if He died only for the elect? His suffering was already infinite. How do you add to infinity? His death does not seem to have a limit as if he died for this sin and not for that one. This distinction does not seem to make sense to me. You cannot add to infinity. Perhaps Christ’s death extends to the whole world, but is only received by those whom God chose to have faith in His Son. In this sense the atonement is unlimited, but it is received only by those that God chose to receive it. Christ still died for everyone, but in His good pleasure, not all will taste the full everlasting benefits of Christ’s death. This allows God to pour out common grace on unbelievers like rain and wealth without compromising his justice towards people who deserve to be sent to hell immediately.

Basically, I have proposed that the infinity of Christ’s sacrifice answers all the paradoxes surrounding this doctrine, and that the distinctions made by theologians are not biblical or relevant. The passages like John 11:49-52 are true, because Christ’s death is effectual only for the elect, but passages like 1 John 2:2 are true as well, because his death is extended to everyone, in that it cannot be contained or found insufficient for any payment.