The Biblical Burdens of Calvinism (Pt 2)

Limited Atonement
Selected Scriptures
2007.03.25
one28 Sunday worship

Last week we talked about Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, the first two biblical burdens of Calvinism. Today we’ll begin to consider the third petal in TULIP, Limited Atonement.

3. Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)

This third biblical burden is the one where a lot of people run and hide. Sometimes you’ll hear people talk about being Four Point Calvinists, and almost all of the time this is the point they reject.

But as we consider this doctrine this morning, I want to do more than simply present my best attempt at a brief, biblical defense of limited atonement, I want to lead us in a biblical, cross-centered celebration of it! Our peace with God is planted here in the center letter of this TULIP (“L”). Because this is so confusing and hard for some, and because it is the center of celebration for others, I want to focus our attention on it for the entire time this morning.

We are talking in this third point about the “atonement.” When the Bible talks about the atonement of Christ’s death it means that He paid the penalty for sin, His death satisfied God’s wrath and provided forgiveness. And when we talk about Christ’s “substitutionary atonement” we mean that Jesus died in the place of, instead of, sinners (2 Corinthians 5:21). He paid their price, He took their punishment on Himself.

Logical Questions about the Atonement

But here is the question: did Christ’s work on the cross make atonement possible or did Christ’s work on the cross accomplish atonement? In other words, does Christ’s work on the cross need our faith to finish the atonement process, or did Christ’s work on the cross guarantee our faith because atonement was finished?

The Arminian says Christ’s death was designed to make salvation possible for each and every person who has ever lived in any place at any time; the target of the cross was universal and general. Christ’s death made salvation possible for everyone, but it did not actually secure or guarantee the salvation of anyone. Man’s faith is the final, but necessary, component that determines whether or not Christ’s atoning work will be effective.

The Calvinist says Christ’s death actually secured the salvation of all of God’s elect; the target of the cross was individual and particular. Christ’s death accomplished and guarantees salvation for all of God’s chosen people. Christ’s atoning work does not need man’s faith to make it effective; Christ’s atoning work effectively provides faith as the final component.

Before we go any further, I hope you see that everybody limits the atonement in some way. The only people who place no limits on the atonement are called Universalists, and a Universalist is one who says everyone is saved and going to heaven. But Universalism doesn’t even have one biblical leg to stand on. So if you think that some people are currently in, and others are going to, hell, you believe in some sort of limited atonement.

• As a footnote, some don’t like the term “limited” atonement. They prefer something more positive like “particular” atonement or “particular redemption” or “definite” atonement. Those are fine, but they really mess up TULIP. Besides, since everyone limits the atonement, we might as well get used to knowing what we mean when we say it.

The Calvinist limits the atonement in its scope (that is, who the atonement is for. It is an issue of quantity). But Arminians limit the atonement in power (that is, what the atonement actually accomplished. It is an issue of quality).

Loraine Boettner wrote one of the foremost books on Calvinism titled The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932). His chapter on Limited Atonement is one that profoundly shaped my thinking on this issue. He gives a great illustration of the difference between the two limitations:

For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.

Let’s think about this logically for a bit more. The foremost book on the atonement I know is called The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen (a puritan who lived 1616-1683). In his book he lists the three possibilities that took place at the cross. Jesus atoned for:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men.
3. Some of the sins of all men.

Which one is correct?

If the last is true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved. The atonement was limited in sufficiency. Everyone goes to hell because the payment didn’t satisfy God’s demand for anyone.

If the second is true, then Christ suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world. The atonement was limited in extent, but not in power. Some men go to hell because Christ did not satisfy God’s demand for them, even though He did for others. This explains how some can still go to hell, how some can be saved, and how Jesus gets all the credit for the saved.

But if the first is true, why aren’t all men free from the penalty of their sin? That is, if Christ paid for the sin of every person, if He took the place of everyone, than how can God justly send anyone to hell? If Christ paid the penalty, how is it right for God to punish Christ and the person for the same sin? Not only does this require a “double-payment” for sin, this makes Christ’s substitution almost worthless. I have difficulty thinking of the Father pouring out wrath on His Son, knowing that He was adding punishment that would do no good.

Again, you could be a Universalist, saying that He did pay for all the sins of all men and so all men are saved. But if you don’t think everyone is saved, you must give another answer.

Most people answer, even though Jesus paid for everyone’s sin, some go to hell because they don’t believe. Here is where the infamous check writing illustration comes in. We owe God for our sin. Jesus dies on the cross and writes us a check to cover everything we owe. But we have to sign the check or it isn’t any good. In other words, we have to believe or the atonement isn’t any good for us. Unbelief is what keeps the atonement from being effective. Owen answers the point,

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

So if Christ died for all their sins, He also died for unbelief. What is it that God has left to punish? So why does He send any men to hell? The answer is not because they didn’t believe, it is because their sins weren’t paid for.

Biblical Affirmations about the Atonement

Well, even if that sounds neat and tidy logically, what really matters is if it is accurate and consistent biblically?

I remember one Christmas break in college, I was visiting the Bible study a friend of mine was leading on his college campus. He was taking them through the Gospel of John, and on the night I was visiting they were working through John 10. John 10 is a great passage on Jesus as the Shepherd and it is an encouragement to the sheep as to how trustworthy their Shepherd really is.

In John 10 Jesus Himself identifies two distinct groups, those who are His sheep and those who aren’t. John 10:22-27. Those who are His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Those who are not His sheep do not believe because they are not His sheep. (Note that it isn’t because they don’t believe that they aren’t His sheep, they don’t believe because they aren’t His sheep.) Anyway, look back earlier in the chapter:

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Back to my friend’s Bible study, I had promised him I wasn’t going to say anything. I really meant it too. But we worked through the passage and were about ready to finish when he asked if there were any final thoughts or questions. I sheepishly asked, “So if it says Jesus laid down His life for the sheep, does that mean He didn’t lay down His life for the non-sheep?” This caused no little stir. I think most of the seven or eight had never thought of it before, so it was more curiosity than anything else that night. And of course, I left to go back to my own college the next day. But over the next couple weeks the study went from eight or so down to two, and he started getting calls from parents and lost friends and it was kind of a big brouhaha.

But the same question is now for you. If it says Jesus laid down His life for the sheep, does that mean He didn’t lay down His life for the non-sheep? The answer is not unclear. Jesus repeats the intent of His sacrifice twice, “the sheep.” The sheep is a definite, specific, particular group. Elsewhere in the gospels they are contrasted with the goats.

And the whole of the chapter fits together. Those who are His sheep are given to Him by the Father (verse 29). This is election. And the sheep hear His voice and follow (verses 26, 27). This is irresistible grace. And they have guaranteed eternal life (verses 28-29). This is perseverance of the saints. And what makes salvation of the sheep possible is that the Shepherd lays down His life for them, not for those who are not given to Him (non-elect) or those who don’t hear His voice (not effectually called). And the virtue of the Shepherd, the reason He is called good, is because of His willing life-giving on behalf of the sheep.

So is this picture consistent with what we see about the intention of Christ’s death in other parts of Scripture? In Matthew 20:20-28 Jesus is responding to the mother of James and John, explaining to her the nature of true greatness, that whoever would be great must be a servant and whoever would be first must be slave. Jesus Himself is the perfect example of that service, and notice who is service is for.

Matthew 20:28 the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

This is not the only passage that talks about His death being for many and not all.

Matthew 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time,

The word for is the idea of “in place of, on behalf of.” And the word many is purposefully different than words like “all” or “everyone.” It denotes a large number, but not an unabridged group.

In His work of being our high priest, He made propitiation (He appeased God, basically another word for atonement) for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

And in His high priestly prayer, Jesus goes out of His way again to make clear that there are two groups of people, His people and those who are not His people. Vv. 2, 6, *9-10, 19, 20, 25. There is a very specific group He is concerned about, His disciples and those who would become His disciples, but not the whole world.

John 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

And then one more passage that narrows the intended scope of His atoning death. Caiaphas spoke to the chief priests and the Pharisees who were beginning to plan how to put Jesus to death, and he prophesied:

John 11:50 “…it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Who are the children of God scattered abroad but the elect? So the Bible consistently affirms that Christ paid the price for His sheep, and they will be saved.

So to summarize the biblical affirmations,

1. Jesus states that He atoned for the sheep.
2. Jesus actually accomplished atonement for sin through His death and resurrection.
3. Jesus prays for the application of the atonement He purchased. (Hebrews 7:25)

If you deny #1, then you must limit Jesus’ ability in #s 2 and 3.

So Christ didn’t die and write us a check, hoping that we would sign it. He died and paid His Father directly in the currency of His blood. Our sins are paid for. It is finished. God is not waiting for the possibility that we will accept forgiveness, He only waits for His timing to apply forgiveness already purchased. Christ’s work on the cross does not depend on our faith to make it effective, rather His work on the cross is effective to make us depend on Him in faith.

Next week we’ll consider some of the Potential Problem Passages argued against Limited Atonement. But as we finish our celebration of the atonement for this morning, if you are a believer, there is no peace like when you really grasp that Christ died on your behalf. What comfort is it to think that Christ paid the same penalty for those who are now in hell? What good did His sacrifice do for them? And what makes His sacrifice more valuable for us? Our faith? No. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe. Sin had left a crimsoned stain, He washed it white as snow. This is why we look to the cross (not to look to ourselves looking to the cross).