CHAPTER 8: LIMITED ATONEMENT - PART II. ANSWERING OBJECTIONS.
ONLY THREE POSSIBILITIES
When discussing any biblical doctrine, especially one that inspires debate, it is wise to break down the options into general categories. This is most heartily true when discussing the extent of Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Over the course of church history there have been only three major views pertaining to the question ‘for whom did Christ die?’ We will call them the universal atonement view, the conditional atonement view and the limited atonement view. Since we have spent the entire previous chapter defending the Reformed Doctrine of Limited Atonement, otherwise called Particular Redemption, or Definite Atonement, we will only address those other two views which have been widely held in the church.
The Universal Atonement View.
This view is surprisingly similar to the reformed view in that it believes the atonement achieved exactly what God intended it to achieve. According to its proponents, Christ atoned for the sins of all the world and that is exactly what God accomplished. The atonement is not an open end transaction that may or may not achieve its goal. Rather, God purposed to save all men and all are saved. The doctrine of universal atonement has been in the Christian Church from the very beginning. Like all explanations of the atonement, it claims its share of Bible verses. On close inspection, however, this view falls woefully short of the biblical revelation on two counts. First, its claims do not accord with the general tenor of Scripture itself. If all men are saved as this view says, then it collides with the clear revelation of Scripture. We have explicit texts that state there are men and women who will not be saved. It is said of Judas Iscariot that “the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Mt 26:24). In another place Judas is called the ‘Son of Perdition.’ The same for the one called ‘the man of lawlessness’ who shall deceive many (2 Thess. 2:3). The fact that God would atone for the sins of every last person in the world is even more dubious when one looks at all the judgment passages in the Bible. God is seen separating sheep from goats and wheat from tares (Mt 25:31-41). Revelation 21:8 adds a list of those who will have a part in the fiery lake. Why would these texts even be there if there was such a thing as universal atonement? Is the Bible stating something that will potentially happen but never come to pass? The fact is the entire flow of Scripture points to the fact that many people will suffer eternal punishment at the end of time. To say that the death of Christ atoned for all men means that Jesus died for those who still go to hell, a thought that is unconscionable and would undermine the very message of the gospel itself.
Yet there are verses that seem to indicate that Christ did die effectively for all men. The first text used to support this is 1 Tim. 4:10 which says, “For this we labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men especially those who believe.” The phrase ‘the Savior of all men’ seems to say that Jesus saves everyone. The key to this passage, however, is to look at the context and to examine what Paul means by savior (gk: σωτήρ). Paul has just said that he labors and suffers reproach, but in the midst of this difficult situation he can trust God. Paul is not saying that he trusts God for salvation. He is speaking about his ability to withstand persecution. And in order to face the trials of persecution he looks to the God who is his Protector. Yes, in a way, says Paul, God preserves and protects all His creation. God is the preserver - that is, ‘the savior’- of all men. He watches over all men, feeds and protects them (see Acts 14:17). But to those who trust Him for forgiveness of sins, He is a Savior to them is a special sense. Such people are the apple of His eye. He ‘saves’ and protects them like a father protects his children. This brings us to an important point. There is a benevolent love of Jesus to all His creation that is broader than His electing love. His benevolent love extends to all, His saving love extends only to His people. In one sermon Spurgeon said,
“The benevolent love of Jesus is more extended than the lines of His electing love.” [1]
Jesus in a sense watches over all men and even protects them. In that sense He is their ‘savior.’ But this care is qualitatively different from the specific protecting love He has for His own.
The second text is found in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 which says, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This text is easily cleared up when one determines the usage of the word ‘all.’ Paul has just exhorted Timothy to pray for all men in the worship service, including the likes of “kings and all who are in authority” (verse 2). In that world of threatened persecution it would be natural for the church to neglect praying for government leaders, many of whom were bent on making life miserable for the church. But Paul corrects this attitude and exhorts the church to pray for government leaders because God is in the business of saving men of every class in society. When he says “all men” in verse 4 he really means ‘all kinds of men.’ We call this the distributive use of ‘all.’ In This usage, the word ‘all’ does not mean every last person, but every type of person. (there is also a metaphorical use of ‘all’ which essentially uses the word all to connote ‘a great multitude’ as we find in Mark 1:5, Acts 22:15, etc.). But in this text the word all is used for every kind of man, rich (kings) or poor (the audience), free or slave, male or female. We find this usage in a text like Romans 11:32 where Paul is showing that the failure of the Jews is the salvation of the world. “For God has committed them all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all.” Who are the ‘all’? Who benefits from the Jew’s rejection of Jesus? The answer is obvious. All nations, all peoples. Not every last person, but all kinds of gentiles from every nation under the sun. So we see the word all can be used in a variety of ways that does not mean every single member in the group and, in the above text the word all means all kinds of men, kings and paupers alike. The context demands it.
The third text is found in 2 Peter 2:1 where Peter speaks about those teaching destructive heresies who “deny the Lord who bought them.” It sounds as if Peter is saying that the ransom price Christ paid on the cross was for the salvation of these false teachers. This would imply that men who are heretics are covered by the blood of Christ. But if the passage is taken in its context this is not what Peter is saying at all. The verse is an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:6 where Yahweh is likened to a Master who purchases Israel and frees her from Egyptian slavery. [2] Moses is not saying that every last Israelite was redeemed by God. Rather the entire nation as a whole was ransomed from the Egyptian bondage and that all Jews were part of that general escape from Egypt. Likewise, the false prophets of this text identified themselves with the church and so considered themselves as part of the general Christian community. Peters’ point is that though they were identified with Christianity, and even called Christ Lord, it in no way was a saving relationship. The proof of this was their false teaching. It should be noted that the word for Lord is despotes (gk: δεσπότης), not the normal word for Lord which is kurios. This word used here has reference to a master owning a slave. The one who ‘being bought’ is therefore likened to a slave purchased on the slave block at the agora (market place). One might say that these false teachers acknowledged God as their Master but secretly rebelled against Him in their hearts. From their perspective the Lord had bought them, but it was a relationship grounded in duty and merit. Like the false prophets of the Old Covenant who labored for fame, power and money, so these men serve God for themselves but never love nor trust Him. [3] This is what Peter is teaching in this text and not a universal atonement.
1 John 2:2 is another classic text used by some to prove universal atonement. It says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, but not our sins only but for the whole world.” Several things deserve mention. First, this text is much easier to explain than what first appears. If this verse is saying that Christ propitiated [4] all men’s sins, then the proponents of universal atonement are correct. But is that what John is saying?
To gain understanding of this text it is important to understand the flow of the book of First John and, in specific, the immediate. When John says ‘not our sins only’ what group is he referring to who are outside the ‘our’? If we go back a verse we have the answer. John is simply expanding on the comment in the previous verse. “If any man sins” (ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ) [5] is a statement of universality. No matter who sins, that person qualifies to receive the propitiation of God. In other words, Christ’s atonement is sufficient for ‘any man.’ No doubt as John aiming to comfort those who had loved ones living in faraway places. The question would naturally arise, “Was the atonement of Jesus Christ good for them as well?” This helps us understand what John means by “the sins of the whole world.” The word for world in the Greek is kosmos (κόσμος). It is used over 20 times in First John and in most of the cases it is used for the unredeemed sphere of human endeavor. We see it used that way in 2:15-17; 3:1; 3:13; also Gal 6:14; Eph 2:2, etc. But John also uses it to mean all humanity in general without reference to man’s fallenness (for example 1 John 4:4 & 4:9). This verse falls in line with the second usage. John is telling his audience that the world, though fallen, is the sphere of God’s redemptive work. It is for the world that God sent His Son (John 3:16). A similar verse is found in First John 4:14 where John says, “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.” This certainly does not mean that God sent His Son to save every last human, but that the entire race, the world, is the object of God’s glorious redemptive purposes. In other words Jesus is a world-wide Savior. Another example of this is found in chapter four of John’s gospel. Jesus is traveling and stops at a well to refresh himself and speaks to a Samaritan woman who believes in Him. The point of the story is clear; Jesus is the Savior sent to save even Samaritans, the hated rivals of the Jews. When the woman runs back to her town having now received the Jewish Savior, she tells her family and friends about Him and they too believe. In 4:42 they respond, “Now we believe not because of what you said for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” In other words, this Jesus is truly the Messiah sent to save people of all nations. In another similar passage, John the Baptist sees Jesus walking one day and cries out, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John is not saying that Jesus‘ mission is to save everyone in the entire world but that he is the great Messiah who came to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant by blessing and saving all the nations.
“For the sins of the whole world” means that Jesus did not come for the Jews only, or for a certain family of people, but for all men, all people groups. No human being should ever fear that he is left out of the salvation offer. Jesus is a Savior offered to all humanity. He is the ‘world-wide’ Savior. The Scottish commentator Candlish argues convincingly that this is the exact sense of the text.
“It is out of place to introduce the subject of the bearing of the propitiation on mankind at large; for the purpose of considering that subject for its own sake, or settling any doubtful question regarding it. It is very much in point , however, and very much to the purpose, to make a passing reference to the world-wide scope and aspect of the propitiation which Christ is, and so guard against the notion of there being anything like favouritism in what he does on behalf of the his true followers and friends.”[6]
According to Candlish, John is not arguing for the extent or intent of the atonement. Neither is salient to John’s purpose. Rather the apostle writes encourage the contemporary saints to take heart that Christ’s propitiation extends to all who seek it. This encouragement falls in line with the overall spirit of the book. [7] Candlish then says in conclusion,
“It is not a propitiation peculiar to me that I grasp in my distress; as if I had an peculiar claim to thee; as if others were sinners more than I, or I less than they. Alas! No. My only hope is in grasping thee as ‘the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.’ That wide charter will take me in when nothing else can.” [8]
In this text the author is affirming a truth throughout the Scriptures that Jesus is the God-appointed Messiah for all the nations. The meaning should now be clear. Jesus does not propitiate the sins for every last human, but He is the Savior for all nations. He is not a provincial Savior of a select group, but the common Savior for all humanity. Yes, Jesus died for heretical Samaritans, for Gentiles, for Barbarians, Scythians, bond and free. He is the savior for Indians, and Brazilians, and Australian Aborigines. Not a people group is left untouched by the atonement of Jesus Christ. He is the only Savior for all men, the Abrahamic Savior of the nations.
This leads to a principle that we must always keep in mind when reading about the cross-work of Christ. Is the biblical author speaking of the atonement intensively or extensively? If speaking intensively the author is honing in on the specific objects of the work of Christ. Consider these verses. “I pray for these, I do not pray for the world” (Jn. 17:9); “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring” (Jn. 10:16). The writer in each of these cases is thinking about a specific group of people. When Paul in Romans chapter 8 says, “whom he did foreknow” he is employing a phrase that points to a specific group who are predestined, called, justified and glorified. At other times, however, the biblical authors are speaking of the atonement extensively. They speak of the cross as the saving remedy for every people group (see Gal 3:28; Eph 2:14-18). In this sense, the focus of is on the fact that Jesus is the Savior of sinners, the Savior of all men, the Savior of every tribe, kindred and nation (Rev 5:9). These verses do not intend to restrict the atonement of Christ, but wish to exult in the beautiful truth that God sent His Son to die for mankind. In saying this, the authors are merely echoing the promise given to Abraham, that “in you all the nations (goyim) of the earth shall be blessed?” Christ is the Savior and the only Savior for all peoples. Let us follow in the footsteps of the biblical authors and preach Him up before all people without any reference to whether or not they are elect. This gives us the freedom to watch God work.
Universal atonement, or Universalism, meaning that all men will eventually be saved, is nowhere taught in the Bible. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t preach Christ as if He died for all. Our mission is to extend the offer of free grace to all, knowing that His atonement had particular sinners in mind.
There is another view about the atonement that must now be discussed. It is a mediating view which we shall call conditional atonement known as Arminianism.
The Conditional or Arminian View of the Atonement.
This view now under discussion is without a doubt the leading view in mainstream Evangelicalism. It walks a line between the Universalist and Reformed positions. Like the universalist view, the conditional view of the atonement has been in the church as long as the church has existed, only more widespread and influential. It rejects the indefensible assertion of universalism that all men will be reconciled to God. But it also attempts to tone down the Calvinistic view that Jesus only came to die for a certain number. As a mediating position Arminianism is in one sense universalistic and in another sense not. Like the universalist view, the conditional or Arminian view, asserts that the intent of the atonement was for every human being to be saved. At the same time this view admits that the atonement is not effectual for all men for there is a condition to meet in order to be saved, and that condition is faith.
The reader will immediately see that this leaves in the hands of men some of the efficacy of the atonement. God supplies all that is necessary for salvation by dying on a cross, but man actuates that provision by exerting his will to believe. This makes man truly a partner with God in salvation. It is not full blown Pelagianism where man can save himself. Arminianism truly believes salvation is by the grace of God alone and no man can access the cross except by a prior work of God. Yet man still must make the final decision whether or not to receive Christ. For this reason this view in theological terms is called Semi-Pelagianism.
The reader can see a potential problem brewing in this view. If total depravity discussed in earlier chapter two means all aspects of man’s being is dead to spiritual realities, then that must include the will. Yet Arminianism in order to be a viable system must believe that man is able to choose Christ. Or, to say it another way, the fall did not affect the human will which is able to choose salvation on its own. It further implies that the fall did not fully darken the mind which can actually see the beauty of Christ so that the will can choose Him. The essential weakness of Arminianism is that is weakens the doctrine of Total Depravity by limiting the noetic effects of sin.[9]
Many early church fathers believed this view. Irenaeus, for example, in his Against Heresies, taught that every human being suffers from the consequences of original sin—estrangement from God, death and the threat of eternal corruption, yet through Christ’s obedience and the imparting of His Spirit salvation is within reach of “all men.” [10] This view finds many other proponents in church history and reaches its peak in the teachings of Jacob Arminius, the Free Will movement, Reformation Pietism, revivalist movements of the nineteenth century, the eighteenth century Methodism of the Wesleys, and the twentieth century Charismatic movement. In free, democratic societies this view has especially caught on as it reserves some measure of spiritual autonomy to man. In an address to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals entitled The Arminian Captivity Of The Modern Evangelical Church in 1995, Sung Wook Chung said,
“However, despite the efforts of Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers to revive the Gospel of God’s sovereign and everlasting grace, it seems that most modern Protestant churches have become captive to Arminianism and its world view since the second half of the eighteenth century.” [11]
Who can argue with the appeal of this view? While holding to the traditional teaching that the atonement of Jesus Christ was penal and substitutionary and that His atonement is absolutely necessary for the salvation of a sinner, it also asserts the sovereignty of man’s will in salvation and seems to explain all the ‘whosoever will’ passages. Most who believe in this conditional view of the atonement do not intentionally diminish the sovereignty of God. Yet in an attempt to reconcile texts that seem to indicate all men can be saved with the fact that not all believe, they give final authority to the human will as that which ultimately saves.
Not only does this view weaken the doctrine of Total Depravity but it actually diminishes the work of Christ on the cross. It holds to the conviction that the cross was a mighty work that made salvation possible for all men but makes salvation certain for none. It leaves open the possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If no one takes the offer of the cross it stands forever as a tragic memorial to a mission gone terribly wrong. To leave the success of the atonement in the hands of rebel sinners is to kill it before it’s born. And if any Christian thinks this through he would be deeply disturbed thinking God could potentially slaughter His own Son for absolutely nothing. This renders God a frustrated deity who does all He can to save men and then anxiously waits for man to respond. The Arminian or conditional atonement view erects a cross that makes salvation possible for all men but effectually saves none. One author summed up the view this way,
“The direct immediate effect of Christ’s death was not to procure for men reconciliation and pardon, but merely to removed legal obstacles, and to open a door for God bestowing those blessing on any men, or all men.” [12]
Most Arminians, however, never consider these compelling arguments against this conditional view. Rather they are so intent to preserve man’s freedom of choice that they unwittingly sap the cross of the ability to save anyone.
The Arminian view, however, is not without its texts. It cannot be denied that many verses in the Bible show that God’s offer of salvation is truly free. For example we have what is the most quoted verse in the Bible, John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
If the offer is genuine then it must be that God intends all to be saved.
There is the same argument in this verse in Hebrews,
“Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them” (Heb. 7:25).
Furthermore, in John chapter four Jesus appeals to the will of the Samaritan woman making it seem like the ultimate decision was up to her,
“If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:10).
And of course there is that famous invitation passage in Isaiah,
“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David” (Isaiah 55:1-3).
Without a doubt ‘free offer’ verses are found in all parts of the Bible. Here are some more.
“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom 10:13).
“Whosoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17).
But the question must be asked, “Does the free offer imply that all have the ability to receive it?” After all, why would God offer anything that cannot be obeyed? This idea has been with the church since her inception. But the idea that the ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ was formulated with great conviction by the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason he said, “The action to which the ‘ought’ applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions.” [13]
But is this true? That God does truly offer His Son to all people no Calvinist would deny. [14] But upon further investigation we find that the Bible is full of divine commands that no man can obey. In other words, the ‘oughts’ of the Bible do not assume the ‘cans.’ For example in Matthew 5:48, our Lord says, “Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” No one would honestly look at command as something man can obey. While lying dead 4 days in a grave, Jesus cries out to Lazarus, “Lazarus come forth” (Jn. 11:43). No one for a moment would say that Lazarus discovered the ability to raise himself from the dead. And we remember that in Ezekiel chapter 37 God commands the prophet to cry out to the bones to live. Ezekiel’s response is the response of us all, “O Lord God, you know” (Ezek. 37:3). In other words God commands many things that man cannot do in his own strength. Only the will of God can accomplish what God commands. This concept was at the center of the fourth century controversy between Augustine and Pelagius when the latter chafed at Augustine’s statement, “Lord command what you will and give what you command.” The great North African bishop believed that God had the right to command man to obey but that God Himself must grant the ability to obey that command. Just because God offers, yes even commands men to be saved, does not mean that man can will himself into the kingdom. In fact the Bible teaches just the opposite. Jesus taught clearly that “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw Him” (Jn. 6:44).
Arminians will say that a particular redemption makes mockery of the free offer of the gospel. But is this true? What makes an offer free? Is it the offer itself or one’s ability to respond to the offer? Certainly it is the former. A free offer is simply one that is freely given to all who want it. If I offer a dollar to everyone who asks of me, that offer is free to anyone who asks. I am not thinking at the moment that some may not understand English, or that some don’t need money, or others are too preoccupied to be bothered. I am offering something freely and sincerely and to prove that it is free, I will give that dollar to anyone who asks. So it is with God. To quote Jesus, “Everyone who asks receives.” There has never been one person who has ever asked for salvation whom God has denied. No, not one.
The conditional view of the atonement sounds like it solves many questions concerning God’s atonement. But in the end it creates more problems than it solves. First, it renders God a reactionary deity who must yield to the decisions of those whom He created. This does not honor the God revealed in Holy Scripture. Second, it renders the cross of Christ impotent to actually save anyone. Though the cross is necessary for salvation, man must ultimately make the choice to receive in order for it to save. But as to man’s ability to make that choice the Bible teaches something very different from what the conditional atonement theory espouses. Romans 3:11 says “There are none who seek after God.” Man is incapable of choosing to trust in Jesus Christ. It’s not that this way is difficult but that natural man has eyes which cannot see and hearts that are repulsed by the gospel. The Arminian view forgets or ignores this. Third, the conditional atonement view bases its case on the ‘whosoever will’ verses of the Bible. But upon reflection this argument is a straw man. Every believer believes that God’s offer is genuine and that whosoever receives the offer will be saved. The fact that man will never receive the offer does negate the offer genuineness of the offer itself.
Let me illustrate the difference between the two systems with the following illustration. Suppose there is a group of twenty campers surrounded by a raging fire. The heat is so intense that there is no way they can bust through the wall of fire to safety. All they can do is cry for help. Everyone on the outside of the wall coaxes the burning people to come out. They plead with them but no one is able to break through the wall of fire. Standing nearby is the husband of one of the trapped people. He is a fireman. Quickly he dons his fireproof suit and he rushes through the wall of fire at great personal peril. Though suffering intense burns he finds his wife lying on the ground. He grabs her and throws her on his shoulders and in one last surge of sheer bravery he runs through a small break in the wall of flames and bursts through to freedom with his beloved on his shoulders. All the other campers died. The next day the newspapers report the story. The people on the outside said they did all they could to coax the people through the flames but no camper was able to actually break through. They were thanked for their efforts and sent home. The man, however, who saved his wife, was hailed as a hero. No one criticized him that he did not save everyone. What was amazing was that he risked it all to save his beloved.
Arminian theology stands outside the flames and beckons people to come to safety. The problem is they can’t. Limited atonement, however, says God came to save His people and suffered great pain in order to do it. At the end of the day all He purposed to save, were saved. This was the truth priestly Zacharias sang about on that day when he held the Messiah in his arms. “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people.” That sums up the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
DOES GOD DESIRE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED?
This is a different question than the asking if God died for all men. The issue here is whether or not God desires the salvation all people. That God has a heart for people to be saved no one can deny. We refer to such texts as Ezekiel 33:11 where God says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" and John 3:16, "For God so loved the world.” We have also this clear statement in 2 Pet. 3:9, "(God) is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” These verses seem to indicate that God desires men to repent from their sins. We also have the example of Jesus yearning over the city of Jerusalem when He saw her hardness of heart. He likens himself to a mother hen who desires her chicks to take refuge in her yet they refuse. There can be no doubt that the heart of God is one that desires the salvation of humanity. The Bible is replete with references to God’s love and compassion for sinners. So the question then comes, “If God desires all men to be saved then why doesn’t He do it?”
Some note that because God has saved so many there is little problem here. God wants all men to be saved and therefore saves many. But this simplistic answer begs the question. The fact still remains that people actually perish despite the fact that God seems to desire otherwise. In other words, “Why doesn’t God save all?”
A very common way to resolve this tension is found in Harold Kushner’s Book When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Kushner solves the dilemma by stating that God is unable to fulfill all His desires. God yearns to be kind to all people and to see them blessed but He, like us, is unable to do all He desires. Like man God is swept up under the power of evil itself. Kushner says it this way,
“He (God) does not counsel man’s choosing good and evil. I have to believe that the tears and the prayers of the victims aroused God’s compassion but having given Man freedom to choose, including the freedom to choose to hurt his neighbor, there was nothing God could do to prevent it.” [15]
Do you see what is implied here? God yearns for the good of all men (their salvation) but because He is not all-powerful, He must bend to the demands of the forces of evil like everyone else. In other words, Kushner and many others sacrifice God’s omnipotence on the altar of His compassion. It solves the problem but it jettisons the biblical God.
Another very common view today solves the problem by saying that God simply cannot know he future and can only interfere with human affairs after something has happened. The view can be summarized as follows: God is wholly good and desires for all men to be saved yet because He has created men with free wills God cannot know the future choices of free-willed agents. In this view the attribute of God’s omniscience is denied. God does not know who will reject Him and therefore cannot do anything about it. This view is called Open Theism and is espoused by men such as Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock. It has become very popular in our day because it harmonizes God’s desire to save all men with the reality that all men are not saved. In one of his books, Boyd explains to his father how God could allow someone like Adolf Hitler to gain power. He writes,
“In one correspondence my father asked me why God would allow Adolf Hitler to be born if he foreknew that this man would massacre millions of Jews. It was a very good question. The only response I could offer then, and the only response I continue to offer now, is that this was not foreknown as a certainty at the time God created Hitler.” [16]
Both of these explanations fall short of biblical revelation for in each case one of God’s attributes must be denied to make the system viable. Both of these explanations must ‘un-God’ God in order to resolve a this great mystery. Neither solution can have any place in the Christian’s thinking.
Yet this still leave us with the question of how can God desire the salvation of all men and yet allow many to perish. The answer can only be wrapped up in the secret counsels of God’s will. This sounds like no answer but is, in fact, the only answer. There are many things about God that we don’t understand. “Who has known the mind of the Lord,” the Scriptures ask? What we know of God is revealed. On the one hand the Scriptures reveal that God is merciful and desires the good of His creation. On the other hand there are many verses that speak of God being just and holy, a God who will punish evil doers. In addition to that we know God is sovereign and He does, “whatsoever He wills” (Psalm 115:3). That all these attributes dwell happily together in the person of God is clear. So He revealed Himself at Sinai.
“The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation” (Ex 34:6-7).
How these attributes dwell in harmony in the person of God no finite creature can tell. In His mercy, God desires all men to be saved. In His justice He punishes those who reject His Son. To try to explain how these things can be is to say more than we know. God is not a Being for us to figure out. He is our Creator before whom we bow down and worship. These divine attributes do not work against each other. We believe by faith that God’s ways are always right. This we know, that all of His glorious attributes are put on display in God’s great act toward humanity: the cross. There His mercy and justice find reconciliation. Psalm 85:10 notes this,
“Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed.”
This is the final word on what happened outside the walls of Jerusalem on that fateful day. When anyone looks to the cross they find perfect satisfaction in all that God is.
THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE
Why do we fight so vehemently for this truth of limited atonement? Is it really that important to know the scope of God's atoning work in Christ? Yes, and for several reasons. First, the doctrine of limited atonement honors the person of Christ in ways that nothing else could. He came on a mission to save His people as He persevered through the most trying circumstances. And He finished the job! [17] Isaiah teaches that when Jesus died he saw the labor of His soul "and was satisfied" (Is 53:11). What satisfied Jesus? That He made salvation possible? No, but that He actually accomplished the salvation of His sheep and sealed that salvation in His precious blood. Surely His knowledge of the salvation of His people was His joy in going to the cross (Heb 12:2). Limited Atonement acknowledges a Savior that did exactly what He intended to do and gives Him all praise, honor and glory. Indeed Christ was never more filled with glory than when He hung on that vile instrument in weakness, for there He destroyed the works of darkness completely, not with the sword or His divine power, but by “making Himself of no reputation” and conquering the world through His weakness and complete submission to God.
Second, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the grounds that gives the sinner great assurance of his faith and thus great peace in his life. If God actually completed the work of salvation from beginning to end and there are no requirements for the Christian to augment the work of the cross, then anyone who has trusted in that cross can breathe a sigh of relief that he is fully saved. It is those who trust in a conditional atonement who are never sure of their status before God. After all, if the cross is open ended, and faith is what brings one to salvation, then what stops one from retracting his faith and falling back into eternal unbelief? If the cross is conditional, then any time a saint goes through periods of spiritual declension he will tossed about with doubts much as a ship on a stormy sea. Only a cross that accomplishes salvation from beginning to end based on the work of Christ alone can calm the saint in times of trial and doubt.
Third, the doctrine of limited atonement gives impetus to evangelism. Why? Because when we know that God has actually saved sinners, we may approach the world in confidence that they will come. No longer is evangelism an exercise in manipulating the will but a proclamation of a powerful gospel and placarding Christ crucified before sinners’ eyes. When Paul stumbled into the city of Corinth, he was weary, as servants of God often are. And how did God encourage this fainting saint? He reminded Paul that Christ had actually died for some of the Corinthians, saying, "Do not be afraid to speak, for I am with you and no one will attack you to hurt you for I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:10). The assurance that Christ had actually died for many of those Corinthian idolaters motivated Paul to keep on keeping on. In a similar way Elijah was encouraged by God when he was reminded that there were seven thousand believers who have not bowed the knee to Baal. To know that God will draw some to the cross by our preaching is the strength of biblical evangelism.
What shall we say about the doctrine of Limited Atonement? What seems at first glance to be a truth that limits the very salvific power of God, actually shows Him to be a God of infinite power who keeps His promises. The cross of Christ actually opens up the gates of paradise to an innumerable company of people. This is an atonement that both glorifies God and saves man.
END NOTES
[1] Spurgeon. C.H. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. Pilgrim Publications. Pasadena, TX. Vol 12, Pg 475
[2] The NIV and ESV both translate the Hebrew word bought- קָנָה- as ‘the one who creates.’ Both translations clearly miss the point that God purchased Israel out of the slavery of Egypt as their Owner and Master. See also Ex 15:16
[3] Consider the case of Eii’s sons Hophni and Phinehas 1 Sam 2:12-17; the conduct of Ahab and Jezebel in 1 Kings 21:1-16, the greedy shepherds that led latter day Israel in Ezek ch. 34; the Pharisees of Jesus’ day Matt 23:1-7;25; and a man named Diotrophes 3 John 8, to name just a few.
[4] See the discussion on propitiation in the previous chapter.
[5] This is a third class condition in Greek called the “More Probable Future Condition” meaning it is an event that will most probably occur at some point. All Christians will sin as 1:8 showed. And though that event will likely happen there is a present reality of Christ’s advocacy that continually covers that sin.
[6] Candlish, Robert. First Epistle of John. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI,1979, pg 72
[7] For a good treatment of the purpose of 1 John see the two part series, ‘Have We Missed the Point of First John’? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r99B_n-GzRg&ab_channel=Theocast and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_dKdCNwtI&ab_channel=Theocast
[8] Candlish, pg 74
[9] The noetic effects of sin are those effects that darken the mind and prohibit it from seeing the Savior rightly.
[10] Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), 3.18.1.
[11] See https://comingintheclouds.org/christian-resources/discipleship/predestination/arminian-captivity-modern-evangelical-church/
[12] Cunningham, William, Historical Theology, Vol II, pg 354, Banner of Truth, 1979
[13] Kant, Immanuel, The Critique of Pure Reason, A548/B576. p. 473.
[14] We have previously discussed Hyper Calvinism which limits the offer, but in reality is not Calvinism at all.
[15] Kushner, Harold. When Bad Things Happen to Good People, Anchor Books, NY, NY. 1981. Pg 94
[16] Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2000), 98.
[17] This is the essence of Christ’s cry on the cross, ‘It is Finished.’ John 19:30.