Well, I fell behind. This has been a busy week, not the least because my wife and I celebrated our eighth anniversary this week (I love you, Sandra!). There is a fair chance that tomorrow’s post will also need to be delayed, so we will see at least one, perhaps two, of the posts on the five points put off until next week.

The most hotly debated point in Calvinism is Limited Atonement. If someone describes himself as a four-point Calvinist, you can bet this is the missing point. The concern is understandable. God’s love for all people is clear from Scripture, as is the universal call of the gospel and God’s desire to save the lost. It can seem difficult to reconcile God’s love and offer of salvation with the Calvinist claim that Jesus’ work on the cross does not extend to every individual in the same way. Nonetheless, it has often surprised me that Limited Atonement has caught so much flack. Before jumping into a longer discussion, let me summarize the view.

In some ways, the term Limited Atonement is unfortunate. Though it fits the TULIP acronym, it doesn’t precisely match the doctrine. Some suggest the term particular, or definite, atonement as a good alternative, but since no one goes around picking tupips or tudips in a garden, Limited Atonement has remained in use.

Limited atonement is the belief that while Christ’s death at the cross was sufficient to cover every sin of every person who would ever live, it was only efficient/effective/actual for those specifically chosen for salvation. Putting it in terms of money, Jesus’ death put more than enough money in the bank to pay for every sin of every person, but that money was only actually used to pay the bills of those who would be saved, the elect.

Understanding limited atonement requires understanding what Jesus did at the cross, so that is the first thing we will look at.

What Happened at the Cross?

While there are many views of the atonement, there is only one biblical view. I draw a pretty firm line on the atonement. The Bible teaches repeatedly and firmly that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice, taking our place, receiving punishment due to us, paying for our sins, and breaking the bondage of sin and death.

This view is known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Penal, because it involves a legal event – the death of Christ satisfying (so the view is sometimes known as penal satisfaction) the justice of God which requires blood be paid for sin (Hebrews 9:22). Substitutionary, because Jesus was our substitute, taking our place to pay what we could not pay. Atonement, because it brings God and man together (literally, at-one-ment), mending a void created when mankind rebelled in the garden of Eden.

Perhaps the clearest text on penal atonement is Isaiah 53. Notice a few passages:

Isaiah 53:4-5

4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed. (ESV)

Isaiah 53:10

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. (ESV)

It was the will of the Father to crush the Son who bore our griefs and was wounded for our transgressions.

Jesus’ sacrifice at the cross was depicted for us long before his birth and long before the prophet Isaiah was born. The Old Testament sacrificial system contained a number of pictures of what God would ultimately do in Christ. The animals were atoning sacrifices, taking the place of the guilty people. But the animal sacrifices were imperfect, not actually able to atone for anything, and they had to be offered year after year throughout the ages.

The book of Hebrews is essentially an extended exposition on the superiority of Jesus over every Old Testament type and shadow. Many of the ritualistic aspects of Old Testament Israel were given as pointers to the future coming Messiah. Jesus is that Messiah and perfectly fulfills what the Old Testament rituals could only prolong. Hebrews 9:25-26 tells it this way:

Hebrews 9:25-26

25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (ESV)

By sacrificing himself on the cross, Jesus paid the full price for sin. Under the Old Testament system, when a sacrifice is made, those who offer the sacrifice receive the benefit and the benefit of forgiveness is accomplished and applied by the blood of the sacrifice. With Christ, God himself offers the sacrifice and he has beneficiaries in mind: his elect children. Just like the Old Testament sacrifice, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross accomplishes and applies definite benefit to those for whom it was intended.

Does the Cross Save Anyone?

The Arminian position (seen in Article II of the Remonstrances) is that Jesus’ death accomplishes salvation for everyone – Jesus paid for the sins of all people – but the benefits are only applied to those who pursue Christ. On Jesus’ side, everything necessary for the salvation of all people has been accomplished, but on the individual’s side, there must still be repentance and faith.

There are three options for the cross:

1. Jesus’ death guarantees the salvation of all people and will ultimately bring everyone to saving faith, since Jesus has paid for the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus’ death does not guarantee the salvation of anyone but makes salvation possible for everyone. The cross opens a door we could not open, but the cross does not guarantee that anyone will step through that door.
3. Jesus’ death guarantees the salvation of the elect.

Going back to the question of what Jesus accomplished at the cross, if Jesus actually paid for the sins of sinners, then the cross has done something definite, not simply made something possible. If all the cross does is make salvation possible, then Jesus did not pay for all sins at the cross. God will not demand double payment for sin. That which Jesus has paid, is paid. If Jesus died for your sins, then when you stand before the Father, you will owe no price for your sin. It will have been paid in full.

I have already compared Jesus’ death to the Old Testament sacrificial system in which atonement was not simply made possible but was made actual by the sacrifice; the cross is no different. At the cross, Jesus paid an actual price and has removed the debt from individuals. Hebrews 9:12 gives us a hint of this: …he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. The writer does not say that Jesus merely made eternal redemption possible; the work of Christ secures redemption. It makes redemption actual, definite, accomplished and applied. It is applied not to everyone, but to the elect.

Atonement Made for the Elect

The only sense in which the atonement is limited is in its application. Jesus’ blood is of infinite value and could pay for every sin. But his blood is only applied to those who will actually be saved. Put this way, even non-Calvinists could (and I think should) hold to limited atonement: the actual saving, atoning work of Christ was carried out at the cross for those who would be saved, and they are saved by means of this work.

But Calvinists take it one step further to say that Jesus died for the elect, those specifically chosen for salvation. I dealt with election in my last post, so I won’t rehash it here. But I do want to mention some passages which at least hint at the definite, particular nature of the atonement, and/or show its application to the elect.

Looking again at Hebrews 9, in Hebrews 9:15 we read that he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. Note two things:

1. Something occurs for those who are called
2. A death has occurred which redeems them from their transgressions. This is not the language of possibility but actuality: Jesus has accomplished the redemption of those who are called.

Some would respond that the calling here is universal: Christ has called everyone to come and receive salvation. One problem with this is it would leave us universalists. Hebrews 9:15 says that the death of Jesus definitely redeems the called from their transgressions. Another problem is seen if we tie in Hebrews 9:28: …Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many… While there are passages which might appear to present a universal atonement (and I’ll address them in a moment), there are others which seem to limit the application of the atonement. We see that in verse 28: Christ was not offered to bear the sins of all, but to bear the sins of many. Jesus himself says the same thing in Matthew 26:28: …this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Why was his blood poured out? For the forgiveness of sins. Who was it poured out for? The many. In speaking of his own sacrifice for sins, Jesus says his blood was shed for many, not for all. (Also Matthew 20:28.)

Sacrifice Made for All

While Jesus’ atoning work was specifically applied to the elect, there are ways in which we can speak of Jesus’ death being for everyone. Not everyone receives salvation, but everyone does receive grace and mercy. By his common grace, God gives life to all people. The sun shines and the rains fall on both the just and the unjust (Matthew 5:45). At the cross we have a clearly visible public declaration of the universal call of the gospel: Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28). In 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul goes as far as to call Jesus the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. The cross has meaning for everyone. But that last passage is particularly important, for while it notes that Jesus is the savior of the world, it also makes clear that Jesus is not the savior of all people in the same way.

What About John 3:16?

But what about those passages which seem to indicate that Jesus made atonement for everyone? I won’t try to look at them all, but let me mention two that are frequently raised.

One verse often cited is John 3:16 itself: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Doesn’t this tell us that because of God’s love for the world, he gave his son to make salvation possible for everyone? Yes and no. Yes, it speaks clearly of God’s love for the world – meaning the people in the world. While I would argue that God does not love everyone in exactly the same way – there is a distinction between those who are his children and those who are not his children – I fully acknowledge the biblical teaching that God loves everyone in some way. But this verse does not say that Jesus died for everyone, just that God loves everyone. What Jesus did is to guarantee salvation for all who believe. Pointing back to the posts on Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, who are they who believe? Those who have been elected and regenerated by God. The elect. Only the elect, those drawn by the Father, will believe in the Son, and the work of Christ guarantees salvation only for those who believe.

Another passage often mentioned is 1 John 2:1-2:

1 John 2:1-2

2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (ESV)

The word propitiation means atoning sacrifice. In the Old Testament, the lid of the Ark is known as the mercy seat, a phrase coined by William Tyndale to note that it was here on the ark, the footstool of the throne of God, that mercy was received when the priest cast the blood of the atoning sacrifice on this part of the Ark. But the literal Hebrew name is place of propitiation or cover over sins (כַּפֹּרֶת, meaning propitiation or cover over sins, Brown-Driver-Briggs; the NT Greek word is ἱλαστήριον, defined in BDAG as place of propitiation). Jesus is the substitution, the sacrifice offered that pays for and covers over our sins.

But if the atonement is applied to particular individuals, why does John say that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and for the sins of the whole world? Here is one place where I believe whole world is used with geographic or ethnic extent rather than individual extent. In other words, John is saying that Jesus is not just the propitiation for the Jews, but for people all over the world!

One reason I believe this is because of the nature of John’s argument. He is a Jew writing about a propitiatory sacrifice: language quite familiar to Jews enmeshed in the Mosaic sacrificial system. Jews and Gentiles alike knew the Jewish sacrificial system was intended for Jews – those natural descendants of Abraham and those who later adopt the faith. Speaking of Jesus as a propitiation would lead Jews to believe that this Jewish Messiah was intended only for them and those who became like them. This is precisely the challenge Paul addresses again and again with the Judaizers, Jewish believers in Jesus who thought Christians should still adhere to the law (many modern Messianic Christians have taken over the work of the Judaizers). When Peter says that Jesus is the propitiation for us and for the whole world, he means that Jesus is not simply the Jewish Messiah. This sacrifice is made for people of every tribe and tongue. Jesus is Messiah for both Jews and Gentiles.

Note that if Jesus was, in fact, a propitiation for every individual, how would anyone go to Hell? If he is the atoning sacrifice for all people, covering the sins of all, offering propitiation for every individual, Hell would be empty and Revelation 20:15 would be meaningless.

There are other passages people raise to challenge the notion of limited atonement, but similar responses could be offered for each of them.

What Limits The Atonement?

One issue people struggle with is the question, what limits the atonement? What keeps some people from being saved? The simple answer is sin. Our default state is sinful depravity. We are born in sin, we continue in sin, we love our sin. Left to ourselves, no one would ever seek God and the atonement would not just be limited, it would be nonexistent. But God in his mercy has come and brought some out of their sinful state. Those rescued from sin are redeemed, atoned for. The only reason there is an atonement is because God is gracious enough to choose to save some.

If the Arminians are right and the atonement is somehow a universal offer, already accomplished and only applied if people believe, then no one would ever be saved. No one seeks God, no one walks in righteousness, no one goes to the Son unless drawn by the Father. The only hope we have of salvation is if Christ takes us and changes us and saves us.

In the next post, we will look at this saving work of Christ: his Irresistible Grace, by which he takes sinners and turns us into saints.

The great passage for this is found in Isaiah 53. Note in particular verses 4-6:

But some have challenged the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross. One of the arguments is that Psalm 49:7 makes it impossible for one man to die on behalf of another:

Context is key, and it does not take much more context to realize that Psalm 49:7 does not prohibit penal substitution. For starters, take a larger block, Psalm 49:7-9:

The Psalmist says that the reason one man cannot redeem another man’s life is because the price is too great. The ransom of life is costly and one man can never afford to pay for another. But faithful Christians have taught that this is one reason why the Son of God had to be our substitute. For a list of reasons, I could not pay for your sins. I cannot even pay for my own. But Jesus Christ is of infinite worth and value. While the cost is too great for me, the cost is not too great for the God-man. Thus the author of Hebrews goes to great length to show that Jesus Christ is more precious than anyone or anything else, that Jesus alone is able to be a complete and final sacrifice for us.

But there is another contextual clue in Psalm 49 that tells us the Psalmist is not tossing out the possibility of penal substitution. In fact, Psalm 49:15 anticipates that God himself will come and be a ransom for us:

No man can ransom another. I cannot even pay for my own sins. But thanks be to God that God himself has ransomed me! The Psalmist knew the price for his life, his sin, was great. But the Psalmist also knew he had a deliverer and that one day God himself would do that which was necessary to ransom men from sin and death. And so we say with Paul the words of Romans 7:24-25: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Far from disproving penal substitution, Psalm 49 affirms that God himself will ransom us from our sins.

Emergents seem to increasingly favor the idea that what Jesus did in his life and at the cross was little more than set an example for us to follow. He was living righteously simply to show us how to live righteously. His death did little more than show us just how much he meant what he had said. It all sets an example for us, it doesn’t actually cause anything to happen in us.

Here is what Calvin says in 2.1.6:

We must surely hold that Adam was not only the progenitor but, as it were, the root of human nature; and that therefore in his corruption mankind deserved to be vitiated. This the apostle makes clear from a comparison of Adam with Christ. “As through one man sin came into the world and through sin death, which spread among all men when all sinned” [Rom. 5:12], thus through Christ’s grace righteousness and life are restored to us [Rom. 5:17]. What nonsense will the Pelagians chatter here? That Adam’s sin was propagated by imitation? Then does Christ’s righteousness benefit us only as an example set before us to imitate? Who can bear such sacrilege!

To answer your question, Calvin, many people in the church today can bear it.