LIMITED ATONEMENT

This third point of Calvinism (2nd Head of the Canons of Dort) isperhaps that most debated point on the doctrine of salvation in the modernchurch. But interestingly, the Arminian article on this point is the mostexplicit of the five articles of the Remonstrance:

That,agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men andfor every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross,redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys thisforgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel ofJohn 3:16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, thatwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Andin the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; andnot for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (Remonstrance,Art. II).

Understandably, this article,—that Christ died for the world withoutexception,—would be affirmed by almost all professedly evangelical churchesaround the world since the majority of such churches (esp. in America) areArminian. But to complicate the matter, there are those who profess to beCalvinistic and fundamental, who would also defend the Arminian doctrine onthis point. This is particularly true of churches that are professedlyDispensational (see PCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue 51). And to further complicate thematter, there are also churches that claim to be Reformed and Calvinistic whichwould either agree to this statement wholesale or adopt an Amyraldian position(see PCC Bulletin,vol. 1, issue 7). Often this capitulation toArminianism is through the influence and infiltration of Dispensationalism intothe churches. Be that as it may be, the doctrine of Limited Atonement orParticular Redemption is often so abhorred in some fundamental churches thatmembers who hold to them find it impossible to continue in fellowship andmembership.

But all these are not important. What is important is whether the doctrine isbiblical. If it is, we must hold on to it tenaciously and preach itunashamedly. If it is not, then we must reject it and denounce it.

It is my contention that the Canons is right: Christ did notdie for the world to save the world without exception (Universalism), neitherdid He die for the world to make man saveable (Arminianism), nor did He diehypothetically for the world, though actually for the elect (Amyraldism).

Note that when we speak of Limited Atonement, we are not saying that theatonement is limited in power, but we are saying that the purpose of Christ’satonement is specifically for the salvation of His elect alone. It is notintended for the reprobates. To put it in another way, we are saying thatChrist suffered and died in the place of His elect (i.e., a substitutionary death;cf. Heb 9:28) to pay the penalty of their sin, to satisfy the justice and wrathof God and to reconcile them to God (i.e., a propitiatory death, cf. Rom 1:18).This is achieved by a double imputation on the Cross, for there the sin of theelect throughout the ages was imputed on Christ, who paid the penalty due byHis suffering and death (Isa 53:4, 6, 11; 1 Pet 2:24; Col 2:14; Heb 9:28); andthere the righteousness of Christ merited throughout His perfectly righteouslife was imputed on the elect (cf. Rom 3:22; 5:17).

The intent of His death was the salvation of His elect alone, and therefore theextent (i.e., for whom) of His atonement is the elect alone. There is no realdifference between the intent and extent of the atonement as some have of latepromoted. Calvinists may differ on the doctrine of the Well-Meant offer of theGospel, but that should be treated as a different, though related subject.

We shall proceed to demonstrate that the doctrine of Limited Atonement isscriptural in a few steps. First, we must show that logically only LimitedAtonement makes sense. Second, we must show that the Scripture clearly teachesthat Christ did not die for everyone without exception, and thirdly, we mustanswer some objections to the doctrine.

Logical Derivation

In the first place, arguing from the integrity of the Five Points of Calvinism,we note that (1) all men are totally depraved and will die in sin unless Godintervenes; and (2) God has unconditionally elected some to salvation. Puttingthese two points together, we must infer that God wills and desires thesalvation only of the elect, and therefore, it stands to reason that Christ,who is God, died only to save the elect.

In the second place, we note that God is perfectly just and will punish allsins. Either they are punished in Christ (for those He represents) or they willbe punished in the sinners themselves (for the reprobate). This being the case,if Christ died for all the sins of all men, all men will be saved. On the otherhand, if He did not die for any one sin of any individual, that individual willhave to pay for the sin himself with eternal death: for every sin against aninfinite God is deserving of eternal death. The great Puritan John Owen putsthe argument across beautifully:

Godimposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either[1] all the sins of all men, or [2] all the sins of some men, or [3] some sinsof all men. If the last [3], some sins of all men, then have all men some sinsto answer for, and so shall no man be saved…. If the second [2], that is itwhich we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sinsof all the elect in the world. If the first [1], why, then, are not all freedfrom the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of theirunbelief, they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? Ifnot, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent thepunishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more thantheir other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? Ifhe did not, then did he not die for all their sins (The Death of Death inthe Death of Christ [BOT, reprinted 1959], 61–2).

The Arminian conception of the death of Christ, that it simply makes salvationpossible, really means that Christ’s death is not sufficient for the salvationof anyone. This is “Limited Atonement” where the limit is not on whom Christdied for, but on the power and value of the death of Christ!

In Arminianism, the atonement of Christ is like a great wide bridge thatreaches half-way across, but for the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrowbridge that reaches all the way across.

Biblical Evidence

The biblical evidence for Limited Atonement can be classed under twocategories:

Christ Did Not Die for Everyone

We have an indication inthe Old Testament that the Lord would die only for a limited number of people.In particular, the Prophet Isaiah, in speaking about the substitutionary deathof Christ, tells us that Christ shall “justify many; for he shallbear their iniquities” (Isa 53:11). In other words, Christ will justify many bybearing their iniquities, which also mean He would not bearthe iniquity ofeveryone.

Thus, the Lord Jesus Himself taught His disciples: “For even the Son of mancame not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransomformany” (Mk 10:45). He did not give His life a ransom for all,but for many. Then when instituting the Lord’s Supper, He declares:“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many forthe remission of sins” (Mt 26:28).

Who is the “many” that the Lord refers to? The Lord leaves us without doubtthat it is His sheep or His elect: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: andI lay down my life for the sheep” (Jn 10:14–15). It is clear that by “thesheep,” the Lord is referring to His sheep, for He goes on to rebuke those whoare not His: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (Jn 10:26).Christ, by His own testimony, died for His sheep, His people, the elect. Thosewho are not His sheep are not the elect, and will not believe.

The same thought of particularlism in the redemption purchased by Christ isechoed by the Apostles. Paul declares: “If God be for us, who can be againstus? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shallhe not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom 8:31b–32). Who is this ‘us’?Paul does not leave us to guess: It is the elect of God, for he continues: “Whoshall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth”(Rom 8:33).

In another passage, Paul seeking to encourage husbands to love their wives tothe point of being willing to die for them, urges: “Husbands, love your wives,even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph 5:25).Christ did not lay down His life for the world, but for His bride, the Church.

This explains why theLord specifically indicates in His High Priestly Prayer that He does not prayfor everyone, but for as many as have been given to Him, i.e., His elect:

Asthou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life toas many as thou hast given him.… I pray for them: I pray not for the world, butfor them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.… Neither pray I forthese [i.e., those who have already believed] alone, but for them also whichshall believe on me through their word (Jn 17:2, 9, 20).

It would be absurd to think of Christ dying an agonising death for everyone inthe world and then refusing to pray for them. It has to be that He is notconcerned to save the world, but to save His elect for whom He died, and socontinues to intercede for them and them alone (Heb 7:14–15).

Christ Died to Save,
Not to Make Salvation Possible

The Lord Jesus Christaffirms emphatically that His mission was to save the lost: “For the Son of manis come to save that which was lost” (Mt 18:11; Lk 19:10). Neverdoes He say that He came to make sinners saveable. The Apostles, accordingly,refer to the work of Christ in definite terms.

Thus, the Apostle Paul declares: “Christ Jesus came into the world to savesinners” (1 Tim 1:15); and “we were reconciled to God by thedeath of his Son” (Rom 5:10).

Thus, the Apostle Peter affirms: “[Christ Himself] bare our sins in his ownbody on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness:by whose stripes ye were healed” (1 Pet 2:24; cf. 1 Pet 3:18).

Thus, the writer of Hebrews emphatically asserts that Christ had alreadyobtained salvation for us with the completion of His sacrifice of Himself:“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered inonce into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemptionfor us” (Heb 9:12).

Notice how the Apostles use the past tense in these verses to indicate that thework of redemption is complete and our salvation depends on nothing else.

Someone may object: “But if Christ came to make salvation possible, it wouldalso be right to say that He came to ‘save sinners,’ just as a man who throws alife-buoy to a drowning person is said to be saving his life.”

But one thing must be borne in mind: There is a colossal difference between a drowningman and a man dead in sin. A man dead in sin cannot help himself. If Christmerely makes salvation possible, he would never be saved.

If Christ came to save, and the salvation of the sinner depends on nothing elsebut what Christ has done in suffering and dying for them, then it follows thatChrist must have died only for a limited number of sinners, for, obviously, notevery sinner is saved. Indeed, if Christ died for everyone without exception,than God would be unjust to punish any sinner for their sin, for it would meanthat He would be punishing them twice: once in Christ, and another time inthemselves. Moreover, the idea would make God self-contradictory, for in Christ“dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9).

‘Problem’ Passages

We have seen how the Scripture clearly, consistently and logically shows thatthe atonement of Christ is limited by design. However, there are admittedly,several texts in the Scripture which appear to be speaking of the death ofChrist in universalistic terms. In this section, we must briefly deal with someof these passages. In the interest of space, we shall not quote the verses, butdo request our readers to look them up in the Bible.

John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42; 1 John 2:2,4:14

Arminians and those withArminian tendencies will often cite these verses and simply declare that “Godloves the world and Christ died for the world”—by which they mean every personwho ever lived. But these verses are easily explained by the fact that the word‘world’ (Greek, cosmos) has at least eight different meanings inthe New Testament. For example, in Luke 2:1, “the world” obviously refers tothe Roman world under the rulership of Caesar Augustus; in Acts 17:24, itrefers to the entire created order; and in John 15:18, it obviously refer tothe unbelieving world. In fact, one needs only to examine the 187 times theword cosmos occurs in the New Testament to realise that itvery seldom refers to “every single human being who ever live” (such as inRomans 3:19). Anyone who tries to use the word ‘world’ or cosmos tospeak about Christ dying for everyone without exception is simply graspingstraw.

What is the meaning of the word ‘world’ as used by the Apostle John in allthese passages? Well, whatever the meaning be, it cannot be “world withoutexception.” If this is the meaning in John 1:29 or 1 John 2:2, then God wouldbe guilty of injustice if He punishes anyone in hell, for Christ would havemade them in the sight of God not-guilty by taking away their sin. If John 3:16refers to the world without exception, then we must conclude that God loves allwho are in hell, being punished for their sin, and that passages such as Romans9:13 and Psalm 11:5 are wrong. Again, if John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 refers tothe world without exception, then we must conclude that Christ failed in Hismission because it is evident that not the whole world is saved.

Some very good sound Calvinistic theologians, such as John Owen, John Gill,A.W. Pink, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Herman Hanko, etc., hold that‘the world’ in these passages refers to the “world of the elect.” This view hasmerits and fits very well with the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Personally, however, I prefer to see it as “world without distinction.” That isto say: (1) The Gospel passages refer to Christ as being not only the Saviourof the Jews but also of the Gentiles, without distinguishing between the electand the reprobate. Ultimately, Christ is the Saviour only of the elect, buthere the emphasis is not on who Christ is particularly saving, but on the factthat those He saves (the elect) are not restricted to the Jews. (2) The epistlepassages carry the same idea, but contrast between those already in the churchand those outside of it.

For example, John 4:42 is a statement made by the Samaritans to indicate thatChrist is the Saviour not only of the Jews, but Samaritans and Gentiles as well(contrast with Jn 4:22). Moreover, if John 3:16 refers to the “world of theelect” then it seems superfluous for the Lord to say: “whosoever believeth inhim should not perish,” for all the elect will certainly believe. The fact isthat the statement makes no direct mention of the elect, but only that God’slove is not confined to the Jews. It is true that God’s love ultimately restsonly upon the elect, but this is a proposition that must be found in otherpassages. And again, note how 1 John 2:2 parallels the prophetic statement ofCaiaphas that: “Jesus should die for that nation [Israel]; And not for that nationonly, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God thatwere scattered abroad [i.e., the elect of God in the other nations in theworld]” (Jn 11:51–52). Caiaphas was prophetically saying that Christ would bethe propitiation for sins of the elect in Israel: and not for only for them,but also for the sins of the elect of God in other nations.

1 Timothy 2:4, 4:10

These two verses arealso commonly urged to mean that God desires to save all men, and that the onlyreason why not all men are saved is because God has left the final decision tomen. First of all, “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:4 does not refer to all men withoutexception, for in the immediate context, Paul makes it clear that “all men”refers to all classes of men:

Iexhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for allthat are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in allgodliness and honesty (1 Tim 2:1–2).

Secondly, the context of 1 Timothy 4:10 suggests that Paul is not referring tosalvation from sin and Satan, else the verse would suggest that “all men” arein a certain sense saved. We agree with Calvin that:

…the [Greek] word sôtêr is here a general term, and denotes onewho defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to allmen. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him,and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by thegodly, who hope in him? (in loc).

2 Peter 3:9

This isanother favourite text of the Arminians to show that God desires that allwithout exception come to repentance since Christ died for all. However, ifthat is the case, then the verse would either imply universal salvation sinceGod can and does carry out His will, or it would imply that Christ will neverreturn since God does not wish that anyone should perish, but when Christreturns every unbeliever in that generation will perish regardless of whetherthey have been “given sufficient time” to repent or not.

The fact is that the words ‘all’ and ‘any’ in the verse are clearly restrictedby the pronoun ‘us.’ Peter is clearly referring to believers (and, byextension, all the elect) when he says, “The Lord is not slack concerning hispromise… but is longsuffering to us-ward” (cf. 2 Pet 1:1–4; Acts 2:39).

Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians15:22; 
2 Corinthians 5:14–15

Thesurface reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:18 does suggest that Christdied for all. But we need not take much effort to discover that the ‘all’ inthe context of both verses mean “all the elect” as contrasted with all who arerepresented by Adam. Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:14–15, Paul was writing toencouraged the believers with the fact that Christ died for them and therefore,they “should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died forthem.” The verse would not make sense if ‘all’ refers to everyone in the world.

2 Peter 2:1

Onsurface reading, this verse does suggest that Christ died to purchaseredemption even for the false teachers and prophets. But again, it cannot bethat anyone purchased by Christ could perish (Rom 8:34–35). It must be thathere Peter is using a form of adhominem argument by whichhe points out that these false teachers actually claim that Christ bought themtoo.

Conclusion

We have shown that Limited Atonement is a biblical doctrine. The Arminian,rather than having an atonement that is unlimited, is really propounding anatonement of Christ that is weak and powerless to save. Worst than that, itmakes God to be a failure because He desires to save all mankind, but His planhas largely been frustrated because the greater part of all mankind iscurrently in hell because of unbelief. In fact, He would not only be a failure,but would also be contradictory, for He desires to save all mankind, but leftthe greater part of all nations in Old Testament times in darkness, and a largenumber of people in the world today without any opportunity to hear the Gospel.It is no wonder that Arminianism leads so easily to liberalism. After all, thegod pictured in Arminianism is an impotent god who is helpless to save. Howcould anyone of us, knowing this fact, be apathetic as to whether Calvinism orArminianism is right?

—JJ Lim