The "L" Word

A Discussion of Limited Atonement

Perhaps nothing appears more threatening to non-Calvinists then the concept of a “Limited” Atonement. Like most Arminians, I found myself perplexed that any Christ-loving believer would ever talk about the Atonement in such terms. It seemed to me that Christ’s shed blood on the cross was sufficient for all individuals and powerful enough to save the whole world. I wondered why anyone would ever believe anything less than that. However, I realized that my original thoughts on this issue was misguided and characterized by many misconceptions. As it turns out, the “L” word wasn’t the heretical position I once thought it was.

I do not intend to give an exhaustive defense of Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption), but I have a few thoughts that may be helpful in understanding the dreaded “3rd point” of Calvinism.

The first thought deals with the exclusivity of Christ. Any cursory study of the scriptures will indicate that Christ is the only way to heaven. John 14:6 tells us that no one can get to the Father except through Christ. Likewise Acts 4:21 says that Christ is the only name given under heaven for our salvation. Clearly, the New Testament intends for us to understand that Christ is the only means to the Father. It is important to note that “coming to Christ” is an action that is preceded by the drawing of the Father. We find this concept demonstrated very clearly in John 6:37-44. We know from this passage that all people are not drawn by the Father, whether by prevenience or other means, instead those that are drawn are also those that are raised on the last day. There is a necessary link between the drawing of the Father, and the coming to Christ. No one can come (i.e. believe) unless there was a prior act of initiative on behalf of the Father. Now we are left realizing that the drawing of God necessitates salvation. For this reason alone we know that all are not drawn, otherwise all would be saved. There is no other alternative in this passage. This concept of all being saved is known as “Inclusivism.” This idea states that people practicing other faiths can be saved by Christ regardless of their personal faith in Him. However, we have seen that the Bible talks in explicitly exclusive terms. Now, if there is an “X” amount of people being described here, which most certainly are those elect individuals whom God predestined unconditionally for salvation before the foundations of the world were laid (Ro 9:11-23; Eph 1:3-11; 2 Tim 1:9; Rev 13:8), then most certainly Christ’s death was to secure the salvation of those individuals. The question then becomes, would Christ die for the “non-elect” as well?

There a few reasons as to why the answer for this question is “No”. If Christ died for every individual person’s sins then why will anyone spend eternity in Hell? The idea is simple, as a substitutionary atonement Christ took our place. He met all the necessary requirements to satisfy the wrath of God on our behalf. Now, if Christ has appeased the wrath of God on behalf of all men everywhere then everyone should ultimately end up in heaven. But we know this is not the case. Therefore, Christ did not die in the place of every individual sinner. John 17:2 says, “You have given him [Christ] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you [The Father] have given him.” Once again we see a definite group of people being given to the Son for him to redeem. Later on in this “High Priestly Prayer” Jesus says that he is praying not for the world but for those whom [the Father] has given to him (John 17:9). There are also a few other examples that teach this idea of a Particular group of people being redeemed at the cross. Paul tells husbands in Ephesians 5:25 to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Also, we are told in Acts 20:28 that the Church of God was “obtained with [Christ’s] own blood.” Perhaps this concept is most clearly depicted in John 10:11 where Christ says that he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Now this is important because Christ describes his sheep as ones who hear the voice of Christ, are known by Christ, and follow Christ (Jn 10:27). This is contrasted with those who are not Christ’s sheep. Christ tells those near him that they do not believe because they are not of his flock (Jn 10:26). Believing in Christ depends upon whether or not someone is one of “Christ’s sheep.” Therefore, when it says that Christ laid his life down for his sheep, he was indicating that he was doing it on behalf of them alone.

Another point is that if the Father has elected a group a people for salvation, then it would demonstrate disunity within the Trinitarian counsel for Christ to die for those whom the Father has not elected. However, we are told that there is a unified purpose between all three members of the Godhead. In Ephesians 1:11 we are told that God works “all things according to the counsel of his will.” It would not make sense for Christ to go against the immutable decrees of God.

The last point I’d like to make is this: Calvinists, if they’re honest, are willing to admit that the atonement is definitely limited in it’s intent. That is, although it is sufficient for all, it is only efficient for the elect. However, it is the Arminian who truly “limits” the atonement. The reason for this is because the Arminian position has to admit that, in reality, no one was saved at the cross. Essentially, from an Arminian standpoint, Christ merely made men “savable.” This ought to indicate that the Arminian position limits the atonement of its power, since it is not capable of saving anyone. It is inconsistent for an Arminian to talk about “Christ dying for them,” because such an idea is bound in the Calvinistic doctrine of “Limited Atonement.”

In closing I think it is necessary to quote Charles Spurgeon's response to Arminians who questioned Limited Atonement, “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."