Monday, September 21, 2015

The Doctrine of Limited Atonement

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men,

questionor all the sins of   some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . . If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will”. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), pp.61-2.
Question: “Limited atonement—is it biblical?”
Answer: “Limited atonement” is a term that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches  about the purpose for Christ’s death on the cross and what His life, death and  resurrection accomplished. It is the third letter of the acronym TULIP, which is  commonly used to explain what are known as the five points of Calvinism, also  known as the doctrines of grace. The doctrine of limited atonement is clearly  the most controversial and maybe even the most misunderstood of all the  doctrines of grace. Because the name can confuse people and cause them to have  wrong ideas about what is meant, some people prefer to use terms like  “particular redemption,” “definite redemption,” “actual atonement,” or  “intentional atonement.” These terms correctly focus on the fact that the Bible  reveals Jesus’ death on the cross was intentional and had a definite purpose  that it succeeded in accomplishing. Yet, like all of the doctrines of grace,  what is important is not the name that is assigned to the doctrine but how  accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the nature and  purpose of Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross.
The doctrine of  limited atonement affirms that the Bible teaches Christ’s atoning work on the  cross was done with a definite purpose in mind—to redeem for God people from  every tribe, tongue and nation (Revelation  5:9).
And they sang a new song with these words: “You are worthy to take the scroll and break its seals and open it. For you were slaughtered, and your blood has ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
Jesus died, according Matthew  1:21, to “save His people from their sins.” This truth is seen in many  passages throughout Scripture. In John 10:15,  we see that He lays “down His life for the sheep.” Who are the sheep? They are  the people chosen by God from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy 
and blameless before him. In love  he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.
These are  the same ones Jesus said were given to Him by the Father in order that He would  fulfill the Father’s will by losing none of them and by raising all of them up  in the last day (John  6:37-40All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38  For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39  And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40  For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”.
This truth that Jesus came for this specific reason is seen in  both the Old and New Testaments. One of the greatest passages on the atonement  in the Old Testament is Isaiah 53. In this passage alone, we see that He was  “stricken for the transgression of God’s people” (Isaiah  53:8); that He would “justify many” because “He shall bear their iniquities”  (Isaiah  53:11); and that He indeed “bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12). These verses  and many others talk about an atonement that was specific in whom it covered  (God’s people), was substitutionary in nature (He actually bore their sins on  the cross), and actually accomplished what God intended it to do (justify many).  Clearly, here is a picture of an intentional, definite atonement. Christ died  not simply to make justification a possibility but to actually justify those He  died for. He died to save them, not to make them savable.
jn210The doctrine  of limited atonement also recognizes that the Bible teaches Jesus’ death on the  cross was a substitutionary atonement for sins. Many theologians use the word  “vicarious” to describe Christ’s atonement. This word means “acting on behalf  of” or “representing another” and is used to describe “something performed or  suffered by one person with the results accruing to the benefit or advantage of  another.” The vicarious atonement of Christ means He was acting as a  representative for a specific group of people (the elect) who would receive a  direct benefit (salvation) as the result of His death. This concept is clearly  seen in 2  Corinthians 5:21: “He (God the Father) made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to  be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”  If Jesus actually stood in my place and bore my sin on the cross as the Bible  teaches, then I can never be punished for that sin. In order for Christ’s  atonement to truly be a substitutionary or vicarious atonement, then it must  actually secure a real salvation for all for whom Christ died. If the atonement  only makes salvation a possibility, then it cannot be a vicarious atonement. If  Christ acted as a real and true substitute for those for whom He died, then all  for whom He died will be saved. To say that Christ died a vicarious death in the  place of all sinners but that not all sinners will be saved is a  contradiction.
Four different words or aspects of the atonement are  clearly seen in Scripture, and each one helps us understand the nature and  extent of the atonement. These four words are ransom, reconciliation,  propitiation and substitute. These four aspects of Christ’s atonement all speak  of Christ as having actually accomplished something in His death. A study of  these four terms in their biblical contexts leads to the obvious conclusion that  one cannot hold to a true universal atonement without also requiring universal  salvation. If one holds to an unlimited atonement while denying universal  salvation, one ends up with a redemption that leaves men not totally free or  actually redeemed, a reconciliation that leaves men still estranged from God, a  propitiation that leaves men still under the wrath of God, and a substitutionary  death that still makes the sinner himself help pay the debt of his sin. All of  these aspects of the atoning work of Christ then become nothing more than a  possibility that relies upon man to make them a reality.
But that is not  what the Bible teaches. It teaches that those who are redeemed by Christ are  truly free and their debt has been fully paid. It teaches that those who are  reconciled to God are actually reconciled and the wall of separation that  existed between them and God has been torn down (Colossians  2:14). It teaches that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice that  fully satisfied the wrath of God. It also teaches that Christ was indeed a  substitute, a kinsmen redeemer, who acted in place of and on behalf of His  people. When Jesus died on the cross, He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), and the Greek word translated “finished” is  teleĊ, which was used to indicate that a debt had been paid in full. And  that is exactly what Jesus accomplished on the cross. “When you were dead in  your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive  with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with  its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it  away, nailing it to the cross”(Colossians 2:13-14).
One common misunderstanding  about the doctrine of limited atonement is that this view somehow lessens or  limits the value of the atonement of Christ. Yet exactly the opposite is true.  Limited atonement correctly recognizes that Christ’s death was of infinite value  and lacking in nothing. In fact, it is of such value that, had God so willed,  Christ’s death could have saved every member of the human race. Christ would not  have had to suffer any more or do anything different to save every human who  ever lived than He did in securing the salvation of the elect. But that was not  God’s purpose in sending Christ to the cross. God’s purpose in the atonement was  that Jesus would secure forever the salvation of those the Father had given to  Him (Hebrews  7:25)  Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. Therefore, while Christ’s atonement was limited in its intent or  purpose, it was unlimited in its power.
Another common misunderstanding  about the doctrine of limited atonement is that it somehow lessens or diminishes  the love of God for humanity. Yet, again, exactly the opposite is true. Of all  of the doctrines of grace, the doctrine of limited atonement, when correctly  understood, magnifies the love of God; it does not diminish it. Limited  atonement reinforces the intensive love of God that is revealed in the Bible.  God loves His people with a love that saves them from their sin, as opposed to  the love of the unlimited atonement view that sees God’s love as being more  general in nature. In the unlimited atonement view, He loves everyone in general  but saves no one in particular and, in fact, leaves the matter of their  salvation up to them. Which is more loving, a love that actually saves people or  a love that makes salvation “possible” to those who are dead in trespasses and  sins and unable to choose God?
populationOne of the main arguments used against  limited atonement is that, if Christ did not atone for the sins of everybody in  the world and if God only intended to save the elect, how do you explain the  numerous biblical passages that indicate the free offer of the gospel to “whosoever will come?” How can God offer salvation to all, including those whom  He has not elected or foreordained to be saved? How can we understand the  paradox that occurs because the Bible teaches God intends that only the elect  will be saved, yet, on the other hand, the Bible also unequivocally declares  that God freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone who will believe? (Ezekiel 33:11Isaiah 45:2255:1Matthew  11:2823:372 Peter 3:9Revelation 22:17) The  solution to this paradox is simply an acknowledgment of all that the Bible  teaches. 1) The call of the gospel is universal in the sense that anybody that  hears it and believes in it will be saved. 2) Because everyone is dead in  trespasses and sin, no one will believe the gospel and respond in faith unless  God first makes those who are dead in their trespasses and sins alive (Ephesians 2:1-5And you were dead in the trespasses andfuneral sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—The  Bible teaches that “whosoever believes” will have eternal life and then explains  why some believe and some don’t.
Another argument against limited  atonement points to the passages in the Bible that speak of Christ’s atonement  in a more general or unlimited sense. For example, in 1 John 2:2 John says that  Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the “whole world.” Likewise, in John 4:42 Jesus is called the  “Savior of the world”and in John 1:29 is  said to “take way the sin of the world.” Other verses that seem to indicate an  unlimited view of the atonement include 2  Corinthians 5:14-15: “He died for all” and 1 Timothy  2:6“He gave Himself a ransom for all” (although Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say Christ came to  “give His life a ransom for many”). Those who believe in unlimited atonement use  such verses to make the point that, if Christ died for all and takes away the  sins of the world, then His atonement cannot be limited to only the elect.  However, these verses are easily reconciled with the many other verses that  support the doctrine of limited atonement simply by recognizing that often the  Bible uses the words “world” or “all” in a limited sense. They do not  automatically mean “every individual in the entire world.” This is evident when  just a few verses are considered. In Luke 2:1 it is  recorded that a “decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should  be registered,” and Luke 2:3 says,  “So all went to be registered everyone to his own city.”But, clearly, that it  is not talking about every individual in the whole world. Caesar’s decree did  not apply to the Japanese, Chinese or countless other people throughout the  world.
Similarly, the Pharisees, being dismayed at Jesus’ growing  popularity said, “Look how the whole world has gone after Him!” Did every single  person in the world follow Jesus? Or was the “world” limited to a small area of  Palestine in which Jesus preached?
So, it should be readily apparent  that the phrase “all” or “all the world” does not necessarily mean every  individual. Understanding that basic fact allows one to consider each of these  seemingly universal passages in their contexts, and, when that is done, it  becomes apparent that they do not present any conflict with the doctrine of  limited atonement.
Yet another argument against limited atonement is  that it is a hindrance to the preaching of the gospel and to evangelism. Those  that use this argument will say that if an evangelist cannot say, “Christ died  for you,” then his effectiveness in presenting the gospel will be limited. Or  they will say that, if only the elect will be saved, why should the gospel be  preached at all? Once again, these objections are easily dealt with. The gospel  is to be preached to everyone because it is the power of God to salvation for  all who believe (Romans  1:16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek., and it is the means that God has ordained by which the elect will be  saved (Romans  10:14-17How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15  And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.  Also, the evangelist does not need to tell the unbeliever that  “Christ died for your sins,” specifically. All he needs to proclaim is that  Christ died to pay the penalty for sin and provide a way for sinners to be  reconciled to a holy God. Believe in Him, and you will be saved.
The  doctrines of grace, and specifically the doctrine of limited atonement, empower  evangelism rather than hinder it. Embracing these wonderful biblical truths  allows one to boldly and clearly declare the good news of the gospel, knowing  that the power is not in our presentation of it or in the audience’s ability to  understand it or desire to believe it, but, instead, rests solely upon an  all-powerful God who has determined to save people from every tribe, tongue and  nation. Belief in an unlimited atonement, on the other hand, presents many  logical and biblical problems. First of all, if the atonement was truly  unlimited, then every person would be saved as all of their sins, including the  sin of unbelief, would have been paid for by Christ on the cross. However, such  universalism is clearly unbiblical, as the Bible is very clear that not all  people are saved or will be saved. Therefore, both the Arminian and Calvinist  believe in some sort of limited atonement. The Arminian limits the effectiveness  of the atonement in saying Christ died for all people but not all people will be  saved. His view of the atonement limits its power as it only makes salvation a  possibility and does not actually save anyone. On the other hand, the Calvinist  limits the intent of the atonement by stating that Christ’s atonement was for  specific people (the elect) and that it completely secured the salvation of  those whom He died for. So, all Christians believe in some sort of limited  atonement. The question, then, is not whether the Bible teaches a limited  atonement but how or in what sense the atonement is limited. Is the power of the  atonement limited in that it only makes salvation a possibility, or is its power  to save unlimited and it actually results in the salvation of those whom God  intended to save (the elect, His sheep)? Does God do the limiting, or does man?  Does God’s sovereign grace and purpose dictate the ultimate success or failure  of the redemptive work of Christ, or does the will of man decide whether God’s  intentions and purposes will be realized?
sky-115393_640A major problem with unlimited  atonement is that is makes redemption merely a potential or hypothetical act. An  unlimited atonement means that Christ’s sacrifice is not effectual until the  sinner does his part in believing. In this view, the sinner’s faith is the  determining factor as to whether Christ’s atonement actually accomplishes  anything. If the doctrine of unlimited atonement is true, then it has Christ  dying for people the Father knew would not be saved and has Christ paying the  penalty for the sins of people who would also have to pay the penalty for the  same sin. In effect, it makes God unjust. Either God punishes people for the  sins that Christ atoned for, or Christ’s atonement was somehow lacking in that  it does not sufficiently cover all the sins of those for whom He died. The  problem with this view becomes even clearer when one considers that at the time  Christ died on the cross there were already sinners that had died who will face  the wrath of God in hell for their sin. Logically, it makes no sense for God the  Father to have Christ atone for the sins of people who were already suffering  the wrath of God for their sin. Where is the justice in punishing Christ for the  sins of those that were already being punished for their sins? Again, this also  shows that an unlimited atonement cannot be a vicarious, substitutionary  atonement.
Still another problem with an unlimited view of the atonement  is that it demeans the righteousness of God and destroys the grounds of a  believer’s assurance. An important aspect of a believer’s assurance is that God  is righteous and that He will not nor cannot punish sin twice. Therefore, the  sin that is covered by Christ’s blood can never be charged to the sinner’s  account. Yet that is what a universal atonement leads to. Christ is punished for  the sins of those that are not saved, and then they are also punished in hell  for the same sins.
Unlimited atonement says that, while Christ does a  great deal to bring salvation to His people, His death on the cross did not  actually secure that salvation for anyone. Christ’s death is not sufficient in  and of itself to save lost people, and, in order for His atoning work to be  effective, there is a requirement that sinners themselves must meet. That  requirement is faith. For man to be saved, he must add his faith to Christ’s  atoning work on the cross. Therefore, the effectiveness of the atonement is  limited by man’s faith or lack thereof. On the other hand, limited atonement  believes that Christ’s death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of  His people. While God does require faith of His people, Christ’s death even paid  for the sin of our unbelief, and, therefore, His death meets all requirements  for our salvation and provides everything necessary to secure the salvation of  God’s people including the faith to believe. That is true unconditional love, a  salvation that is by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ plus nothing equals  salvation—an atonement so sufficient that it secures everything necessary for  salvation, including the faith that God gives us to believe (Ephesians 2:8-10)   For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,  not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them..
Limited atonement, like all of the doctrines of grace, upholds and glorifies  the unity of the triune Godhead as Father, Son and Holy Spirit all work in  unison for the purpose of salvation. These doctrines build upon one another. The  doctrine of total depravity establishes what the Bible teaches about the  spiritual condition of unregenerate man and leaves one with the question “Who  can be saved?” The doctrine of unconditional election then answers the question  by declaring God’s sovereign choice in choosing to save people despite their  depravity and based solely on God’s sovereign choice to redeem for Himself  people from every tribe, tongue and nation. Next, the doctrine of limited  atonement explains how God can be perfectly just and yet redeem those sinful  people and reconcile them to Himself. The only solution to the depravity of man  was for God to provide a Redeemer who would act as their substitute and suffer  the wrath of God for their sins. He did this in the death of Christ, who, having  been crucified, completely and totally “canceled out the certificate of  debt…having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14). That leads to another question: how  can a spiritually dead sinner who is hostile to God have faith in the atoning  work of Christ on the cross? That question is answered by the doctrine of grace  that is known as irresistible grace, the “I” in the acronym TULIP.
GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to http://www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.

 “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
  
All Images are Public Domain
Augustine Chapter 16.–Why the Gift of Faith is Not Given to All.
Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for finding fault with God. Whence it is plain that it is a great grace for many to be delivered, and to acknowledge in those that are not delivered what would be due to themselves; so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,–”His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” [Rom. xi. 33] For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” [Rom. ix. 20] than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret. Since, moreover, He could not will anything unrighteous.
“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,