logo

The Case for Limited Atonement

Does the Bible really teach that Jesus only died to save some people on the Cross? This is without a doubt the most controversial of John Calvin’s five points, one which many simply cannot accept. In fact, it is so controversial that, according to Sproul in Chosen by God, some, called “four-point Calvinists,” adopt every point of Calvinism, except this one, called limited atonement (177). It is odd, though, that one could profess the other four points of Calvinism and still reject limited atonement, for the rejection of limited atonement is both inconsistent and incompatible with the other four points. Indeed, the case for limited atonement depends on the other four points of Calvinism, although each point requires its own defense. There is a strong case to be made for the doctrine of limited atonement, especially within the broader context of Calvinism, despite the many objections to it, and it is actually an immensely valuable teaching.

Definitions

First, it is very important to clearly state what is meant by “limited atonement.” The atonement is one aspect of soteriology, or the study of salvation, and it refers to what was accomplished on the Cross “through Christ’s obedience and death and resurrection” (“Isn’t Unlimited Atonement More Glorious”). Limited atonement is one of two ways of looking at the atonement, both of which are orthodox Christian views. John Murray, in his article, “The Reformed Faith and Arminianism,” expresses these two viewpoints with the question, “Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people?” Arminians affirm the former, while Calvinists prefer the latter.

Note that there are two parts to this question that Calvinism and Arminianism seek to answer, regarding both the extent and the purpose or design of the atonement. According to Piper in Five Points, Arminians believe that the extent of the atonement is unlimited and that, therefore, the atonement is general and designed only to make salvation possible for all men, but requires something else, primarily their choice, to be the “decisive” factor in their salvation. They believe that in order for the atonement to be effective for someone, that person must first choose to accept it (38). Calvinists answer with the doctrine of limited atonement, which holds that the purpose of the atonement is to fully and finally and infallibly secure salvation for particular persons and to be the decisive factor in salvation by securing the belief that makes it effective, leaving nothing up to mankind. This view, however, requires that the extent of the atonement be limited.

Notice that both theological frameworks, Arminianism and Calvinism, approach the subject differently. With Arminianism, the main premise is about the unlimited extent of the atonement and its purpose is only a logical consequence. With Calvinism, it is the opposite. The main premise of limited atonement is the design of the atonement, and the limited extent of the atonement is merely a corollary. Unsurprisingly, the biblical argument for limited atonement parallels this. Passages that directly support the limited extent of the atonement are lacking, but there is a wealth of evidence for the purpose of the atonement held out by the doctrine of limited atonement.

Biblical Evidence for the Limited Extent

Nevertheless, there are a few passages that seem to demonstrate the limited extent of the atonement, perhaps most notably in John 17, as R.C. Sproul recognizes in Chosen by God. John 17 records what is known as Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer or his High Priestly Prayer, which he prays just before Judas betrays him. He prays, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (Reformation Study Bible, John 17:9). Jesus intercedes on behalf of the elect — those whom the Father has given him, those for whom he is about to offer himself as a sacrifice. This shows the atoning work of Christ on the Cross is designed for a specific, limited number. While praying for those for whom he is about to die, Jesus excludes the world. Regardless of what the “world” refers to, it is clear that Jesus is not praying for everyone and therefore did not die for everyone. As Sproul puts it, “He explicitly excludes the non-elect from his great High Priestly Prayer . . . Did Christ die for those whom he would not pray?” (179). Surely not. He did not die in some vague sense for any who might end up believing; instead, he laid down his life in a personal and intentional way to definitively save a particular people whom the Father had already given him.

And although Jesus later transitions in his prayer: “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17:20), which, at first, seems to extend the atonement to everyone, Jesus is still only praying for the elect. He prays, “Father, I desire that they also [those who will believe], whom you have given me, may be with me where I am” (John 17:24), which shows that even the seemingly unlimited prayer for “those who will believe” still refers only to those the Father has given to Jesus, the elect.

Biblical Evidence for the Purpose of Limited Atonement

The main argument, though, lies in the numerous passages that speak clearly of the purpose of the atonement, as well as what the Bible teaches about the new covenant. Scripture makes it clear that Christ came to do more than only make salvation possible. There are countless passages that contradict that notion. In Luke 19, Jesus reveals that Christ means by his death to do more than make salvation possible (Henry and Miller). Jesus says to Zacchaeus, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). He did not say the Son of Man came to die so that the lost could possibly be saved. He says he came to save, actually, effectively, and without the possibility of failure. Further, Jesus said he came to seek the lost. Christ is not content to make salvation possible for all people and wait for some to maybe choose to trust in him. The fact that Christ actively seeks the lost shows that the atonement is designed to do more, to decisively secure salvation for those the Father has given him.

In Romans 5, Paul reveals that the finished work of atonement on the Cross does not depend on our faith for its efficacy. He writes, “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. . . while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Romans 5:8, 10). If the atoning work of Christ’s death reconciles us to God while we are sinners and enemies of God’s kingdom, we cannot play a role in the work of the atonement. If we were to play a role, we could not be enemies at the point of reconciliation, for “haters of God” do not wish for reconciliation (Romans 1:30). According to Paul, the atonement does not start our reconciliation with God and then wait for us to complete it; Christ’s death fully reconciled us to God, without any contribution on our part as Arminianism requires.

In Romans 8, Paul describes the nature of election: “And those whom [God] predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). Notice the decisive language; there is no doubt or contingency. Paul uses the past tense here, because God has already secured our justification and glorification. And Paul continues, referring to the elect, “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39), which demonstrates an atonement which “infallibly secure[s] 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” (Spurgeon), because nothing “in all creation” can separate the elect from the love of Christ shown on the Cross.

Biblical Evidence from the New Covenant

One more facet of the argument for an atonement that infallibly secures salvation for God’s people remains: the biblical description of the new covenant. Whereas the Arminian view that the efficacy of the redemption plan depends at least in some small part on something we bring to the table does not and cannot square with the nature of the new covenant as Scripture describes it, the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement is framed around the new covenant. John Owen, in his seminal work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, gets at the central difference between the old and new covenants: “This then is one main difference of these two covenants — that the Lord did in the old only require the condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the federates, to whom this covenant is extended” (79). Because we are incapable of keeping the old covenant, God enacts a new covenant, one “that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he [Christ] mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). And we see that this new covenant is more excellent for God’s people not because the conditions changed, but because God promises to “put the law within them” and “write it on their hearts” so that they cannot break the covenant again (Jeremiah 31:33). In Five Points, Piper writes that God guarantees the success of the new covenant by securing the conditions of the covenant for us with his “sovereign initiative” (42). The conditions are unchanged; the difference lies in the fact that God now secures the conditions for us. He writes the law on our hearts, and he removes our “heart of stone” and gives us a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). He is the one who softens our calloused hearts to receive salvation. He is the one who causes us to be “born again” so that we might “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3), for just as we are in no way responsible for our physical birth, neither are we responsible for our new birth in the Spirit. As Paul writes, “It depends not on human will and exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16); therefore, salvation depends in no way on us. In the old covenant, the burden of keeping the covenant was upon us, but in the new covenant, through the atonement on the Cross, just as the doctrine of limited atonement holds, God places that burden upon himself, leaving nothing to us, but fully securing salvation himself.

And, if that is the case — if the atonement itself is the decisive factor and if the salvation it purchases does not depend in any way on us — then the atonement must be limited. In light of an atonement that goes beyond possibilities and actually secures salvation for God’s people, any attempt to deny the limited extent of the atonement is essentially universalism, or the idea that everyone will eventually be saved, which is very clearly not biblical (Henry and Miller). And thus, the biblical conclusion appears to be an atonement that effectively, infallibly, finally, and fully secures salvation for all it intends to, which logically requires that the intended extent be limited.

Answering Objections

Admittedly, though, several strong, valid objections to this doctrine are often raised. Limited atonement seems to contradict Scripture in a few places. There are many verses that use universal language like “all” to describe the extent of the atonement. There is neither space nor need to reply to every verse here, however, because the response is largely the same. Most apparent contradictions can be resolved by looking at the context or interpreting the verse in question in light of more perspicuous passages, and a couple examples will sufficiently demonstrate the typical responses to such objections.

First, Peter writes that “the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9, emphasis mine). If God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, then how can the extent of the atonement be limited? In “Limited Atonement,” R.C. Sproul points out that the word “any” is a pronoun that requires an antecedent. At first glance, many naturally assume it refers to anyone or any person, but the grammatical antecedent of the word “any” is the preceding pronoun “you.” And to whom does “you” refer? Within the context of 2 Peter, the “you” does not most likely refer to “all mankind indiscriminately,” but probably to the believers to whom Peter is writing (Sproul).

Another verse that raises a significant objection to limited atonement is in 1 Timothy (Armstrong). Paul tells Timothy, “We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10). How can the extent of the atonement be limited when God is the Savior of all people? The Calvinist response involves the two kinds of efficacy of Christ’s work described in the verse, distinguished by two different expressions of grace. Henry and Miller argue that he died for everyone in the sense that he secured “common grace” for all mankind. Common grace is the grace that God shows just by granting everyday blessings to everyone, even unbelievers. This is the grace that causes the sun to rise, the seasons to change; this is the grace God shows every second by not striking all of us dead right now to satisfy his holy wrath against our sin. Beyond this common grace which Christ’s death secured for an unlimited number, Christ shows “saving grace” to a limited number of believers. This is the grace shown on the Cross. It is the irresistible grace that not only saves us from God’s immediate wrath as common grace does, but also saves us from the future judgement. Therefore, Christ is the Savior of all people in the sense that everyone receives the benefits of common grace, but he is the Savior especially of those who believe because believers receive saving grace through the Cross (Henry and Miller).

Some object that unlimited atonement would be more glorious than limited atonement, which is a weighty objection considering that Calvinism claims to give God more glory. As Murray put it, however, “Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement.” The Arminian view of unlimited atonement also limits the atonement, just in a different manner. Limited atonement limits the extent, while unlimited atonement limits the purpose of the atonement itself. In fact, most Calvinists prefer the term “particular redemption” (“Limited Atonement”), or “definite atonement” (“Isn’t Unlimited Atonement More Glorious”), because the term “limited atonement” is misleading. Further, in the Calvinist view, so-called “unlimited atonement” is actually more limited, because, whereas Ariminians believe that we are capable of choosing to surrender our lives to Christ, Calvinists believe that our bondage to sin is so strong that we are actually incapable of making the choice to trust in Christ that unlimited atonement requires if it is to be effective. Matthew records Jesus saying, “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:14), and Charles Spurgeon describes the atonement as the bridge that spans the chasms of our sin between us and God. He says that limited atonement may be a narrow bridge, but at least it completely crosses the chasm. Unlimited atonement, he illustrates, is like a wide bridge, but it only reaches halfway across the chasm and leaves us to bridge the rest of the chasm ourselves (Spurgeon).

In Chosen by God, R.C. Sproul identifies another common objection: If God has already decided who will be saved, and if we might be “wasting” our efforts on someone Christ did not die for, why bother evangelizing? His professor asked him this question in seminary, and when he answered that “one small reason . . . is that . . . Christ does command us to do evangelism,” his professor responded, “Is it barely significant to you that the same sovereign God who sovereignly decrees your election also sovereignly commands your involvement in the task of evangelism?” (181). Jesus commanded his disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20), and that should be reason enough to evangelize. And in addition to this, evangelism is a privilege. We ought to be so grateful and in awe of the salvation we have received from God that we cannot contain our desire to share the good news with everyone. We should be filled with a desire to glorify God with evangelism. God does not have to use humans to bring people to him, but he chooses to use humans as part of his effectual calling. It should be encouraging to us that God is responsible for the success of our efforts, not us. And we should be honored and humbled that, as Sproul puts it in his book, “God allows us to participate in the greatest work in human history, the work of redemption” (181).

Finally, the perhaps most prevalent objection is a more visceral response to hearing the doctrine of limited atonement. As Foster objects, “It [limited atonement] is revolting to every sensibility of the soul — to every feeling of humanity — to all that is generous in religion and reason. Together with other elements of the Calvinistic faith, it dishonors, it demonizes the God of the universe.” God is supposed to be just, the objection goes, how could he only save some people and not even give others a chance at salvation? It is important, here, to grasp the full weight of our sin. We bear full responsibility for our sin, and God has no obligation to save anyone. Paul writes that all are without excuse because God has revealed himself in creation, yet “we exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). And we have incurred the wrath of God as a result of our sin: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Romans 1:18). Paul even writes that we are “haters of God” (Romans 1:30). But despite our depravity, God graciously chooses to save some of us from ourselves “while we were enemies” (Romans 5:10), which Paul describes as adoption in Ephesians 1. When one chooses to adopt, is it unjust that they do not adopt every orphan in the world? No; instead, it is a marvelous show of love and grace that one would adopt even a single child. Likewise, and even more so, it is not unjust that God leaves some to the consequences of their sin, for which they bear full responsibility and have no excuse. Rather, it is an unfathomable display of mercy and grace that God would choose to save any of his rebellious enemies by “adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:5).

Conclusion

And ultimately, it does not matter if we are not satisfied with this answer. Scripture makes it absolutely clear that this is perfectly just. When writing to the Church in Ephesus, Paul describes “God’s purpose of election” in depth (Romans 9:11), and he anticipates this very objection: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Romans 9:14). Paul’s response is the exact same as his answer to the preposterous question raised earlier about whether we should “continue in sin that grace may abound” (Romans 6:2). By no means! To Paul, the question of God’s justice within election and limited atonement is equally preposterous. God says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15). We have no right to question God. He is the potter, and we are merely the clay (Isaiah 64:8), and he has every right “to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use . . . in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” (Romans 9: 21, 23).

Besides, just as they too limit the atonement, proponents of unlimited atonement must also deal with this problem: “Why wouldn’t God save us all if he has the power and desire to do so?” (Keller). If God desires that everyone be saved, as many interpret 2 Peter 3:8, and if God is sovereign and has the power to carry out his purposes (Job 42:2), then why would God not save everyone? While Calvinists deny that God desires all to be saved and hold that God sovereignly secures salvation for all whom he intends, the Arminian clings to the premise and thus wrecks the sovereignty of God. According to the premise, God wills that everyone be saved, but if that is the case, God cannot be sovereign, for not all are saved. Hence, Calvinists and Arminians both must deal with this last objection, but unlimited atonement fails to maintain the sovereignty of God while doing so. Still, why does it matter? Why spend so much time debating one specific doctrine? Is it even important? Yes! The doctrine of limited atonement is of immense value to Christians. First, it takes the weight of our sin seriously. The gravity and severity of our sin and the separation it creates between us and God cannot be overstated, and limited atonement reveals the weight of sin by rightly asserting that we cannot overcome our sin on our own. Second, limited atonement gives God more glory by recognizing that we contribute nothing to our salvation. Rather than minimizing God’s grace and maximizing our ability by assuming we merit salvation, which can lead to arrogance, the recognition that we are saved truly sola gratia, by grace alone, should engender tremendous humility. Third, it describes a richer, fuller, specific love from God. With limited atonement, God does not show a generic, universal love to everyone, but he shows a specific, overwhelming love to particular people, which is far more meaningful. Lastly, limited atonement maintains the efficacy of the atonement. It is essential to get this doctrine right, because with unlimited atonement, as B.B. Warfield puts it, “‘the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference’” (qtd. in Murray). Although the idea of an unlimited atonement may seem better, by insisting that the atonement have a universal reference, we detract from the power and efficacy of the atonement itself.

Although the doctrine of limited atonement may be controversial and can be hard to digest, it seems to be the biblical conclusion. Because it is difficult to accept at first, the doctrine forces us to reevaluate our beliefs, to our great benefit. When we do submit to the authority of Scripture and embrace limited atonement, we find many glorious truths that were hidden before and we experience God’s love, mercy, and grace more deeply as a result.

Works Cited

Join my mailing list?

Fancy the way I arrange letters into words and words into sentences and sentences into (hopefully) coherent ideas? Why not subscribe so those ideas find their way into your inbox?