Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Limited Atonement, or Boundless Grace?


Five-Point Reformed Theology is distinguished in part by the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Of the five points of the Calvinist TULIP, this idea remains the most controversial among Reformed believers. A number of otherwise staunch Calvinists have embraced the remaining four doctrines of Reformed Theology while rejecting the doctrine of Limited Atonement, giving rise to the term "Four-Point Calvinist."  Many others, however, maintain rightly that this doctrine follows from the remaining four points; and that to reject the "L" in the TULIP is ultimately a rejection of the Calvinist view of the sovereignty of God and, therefore, Calvinism itself.

Just what is the doctrine of Limited Atonement, and how was it derived?  Stated simply, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died, not for the sins of all of mankind, but that, instead, He died for the sins of all whom the Father predestined to salvation. As we will see, this idea is not derived through an unbiased exegesis of Scripture, but is rather read into passages that would otherwise clearly refute the idea, primarily because it logically follows from the other points of Reformed Theology, particularly from the doctrines of Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace. The logic behind the doctrine seems to hinge largely on a couple of points:


1)    If a person for whom Christ died goes to Hell, God has collected two payments for sin; Christ's atoning blood and the eternal suffering of the individual. Thus, the Calvinist argues, the belief that Christ died for the sins of all men (though clearly taught in Scripture) must lead either to a corresponding belief that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, are saved from damnation (universalism); or the belief that God compromises His justice by punishing redeemed sinners. This argument is summarized by R.C. Sproul as follows:  "When we speak of the sufficiency of the atonement, however, we must ask the question, Is it a sufficient satisfaction of divine justice? If it is sufficient to satisfy the demands of God's justice, then no one needs to worry about future punishment.  If God accepts payment of one person's moral debt from another, will he then exact payment of the same debt later by the person himself?" (Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, pp. 166-167). This argument may seem soundly reasoned, but is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the workings of God's grace and of His justice. At the core of this argument lies the misconception that unbelieving sinners go to eternal punishment for their sins under the Law. This is not what the Bible teaches. We read in John 3:18 that unbelievers are condemned, not on the basis of their sins under the Law, but because they have rejected the only begotten Son of God. Similarly, we read in the Book of Hebrews that the Israelites could not enter the promised land, a picture of the coming Kingdom of Christ, not because of sins committed in the wilderness, but because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19). In fact, The Lord had forgiven the grumbling, the carnality (Exodus 32:6, 1 Corinthians 10:7); even the idolatry of His people - and was prepared to lead them into Canaan, according to His promise to Abraham and to Jacob, but did not, because of Israel's stubborn refusal to believe that He could do so, even after the numerous miracles He had performed in their midst (Numbers 14).  In Paul's letter to the Galatians we read that no one has ever been, nor ever will be, justified by the Law.  Thus, the sinner goes to Hell, not because of sins under the Law already paid for by Christ, but because they, like the false teachers in 2 Peter 2, have denied The Lord who bought them.  Now, let me ask you something:  If the Lord only died for (bought) a limited number of elect persons, how is it that He also bought false teachers headed for destruction?

2)    If a person for whom Christ died goes to Hell, Christ's blood is spilled in vain and rendered ineffective. This, according to Calvinist reasoning, represents an assault on the sovereignty of God. This argument may readily be dismissed for two reasons: first, as detailed above, the fact that a person for whom Christ died may spend eternity in Hell does not render Christ's sacrifice ineffective. As we have noted above, unbelievers are actually condemned on the basis of their unbelief. Even were this not the case, we can reason that Christ's sacrifice did indeed represent full payment for the sins of the unbeliever, but that the unbeliever, in rejecting (refusing to believe in) Christ, forfeits the benefits of His atoning sacrifice, because there is no other sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26). The writer to the Hebrews was warning his readers of the folly of trying to take a dual track toward salvation - belief in Christ, plus continued maintenance of the system of Laws and animal sacrifices under which they had been raised (effectively trampling on the blood of Christ - see v. 29).  To put this argument in perspective, imagine a scenario in which a wealthy stranger writes a debtor a check for enough money to pay his debts in full. The debtor throws the check away, choosing instead to try and work off his debt in debtors' prison. The check has lost none of its value, but the debtor has squandered (and trampled on) the precious gift in his prideful rejection of the payment.

The passages of Scripture refuting the idea that Christ's atonement is limited to a select few predestined for salvation are too numerous to list here in their entirety, but a small sampling is provided below:

2 Peter 2:1: But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

As asked above, how is it that Jesus "bought" those of whom the Bible says they denied Him, and who, according to the scriptures, are bringing swift destruction upon themselves? The only logical explanation is that Jesus actually paid the penalty for their sins, but that somehow these people rejected Him in favor of man-centered false teaching.

1 Timothy 2:3-4:  Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.  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.

Does it make any sense that a God who truly wished that all men be saved would provide atonement only for a select few, chosen before the foundations of time? Yet, as noted in a previous installment, leading Reformed apologists like John F. MacArthur go out of their way to read meaning into this text that simply is not present, thus forcing the invention of a double-minded God who has two wills - one of decree, and a permissive will, or will of desire:

"The Greek word for “desires” is not that which normally expresses God’s will of decree (his eternal purpose), but God’s will of desire. There is a distinction between God’s desire and his eternal saving purpose, which must transcend his desires." (MacArthur Study Bible, Note on 1 Timothy 2:4)

What a tragedy it is when we let man-made doctrine take such firm root in our hearts that we are willing to slander the character of God in order to force Scripture to fit our preconceptions!  The Lord condemns double-mindedness in His Word in no uncertain terms (James 1:8, 4:8).

2 Peter 3:8-9: But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Again, in order to harmonize this passage of Scripture with Reformed theology, Reformed apologists must insert meaning not present in the original text to explain how "any" in this context must refer only to "any of the elect, whom God has chosen for salvation:"

"...not wishing that any should perish. The “any” must refer to those whom the Lord has chosen and will call to complete the redeemed, i.e., the “you.” Since the whole passage is about God’s destroying the wicked, his patience is not so he can save all of them, but so that he can receive all his own." (MacArthur Study Bible, Note on 2 Peter 3:8-9)

Nothing in the immediate context of the passage (a warning that, despite the words of scoffers who ridicule the notion of Christ's return, He is coming back - and this time to to judge the world, rather than save it) gives any indication that the word "any" refers to a preselected few.  In fact, a fresh, unbiased reading of the passage would naturally lead the reader to the conclusion that God is delaying judgement in order to give as many the opportunity to respond to the Gospel in faith as possible; not that it is a surprise to Him who will or won't, but that in His infinite mercy and grace He desires to give all the (actual) opportunity to believe in or to reject Christ.

1 John 2:2: And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Here we have a letter, clearly written to believers whose sins are forgiven (1 John 2:12) and who know Christ (1 John 2:13), and the apostle tells them what?  That Christ paid, not for their sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.  It is worth mentioning that the same word for world is used in the same letter to describe those who do not know Christ or Christians (1 John 3:1), who hate and persecute Christians (1 John 3:13), from whom Christians should distance themselves, in terms of lifestyle (1 John 2:15), and who lie in wickedness (1 John 5:19).  Once again, witness the lengths to which the Reformed apologist will go to narrow the term "world" to a select few elect:


"...for the sins of the whole world. This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe. A number of Scriptures indicate that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ. The passages that speak of Christ’s dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:3–4). “World” indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation."  (MacArthur Study Bible, Note on 1 John 2:2)

Unfortunately, MacArthur here falls into the same false logic concerning double-payment as does Sproul.  While it is true that the Greek word (kosmos) used here is used variously to describe people, the universe, and the world system or sphere, only the first of those meanings makes any sense in the context of this passage.  Christ died for a sphere?  For a system?  No!  He died for people - many who will reject His kind and sincere offer of eternal life, and some who will joyfully receive it. 

If you are wondering whether Christ's offer of eternal life applies to you; it does.  If you are wondering whether it is sincere; it is.  May God's Word cause you to trust in Him today.

No comments:

Post a Comment